2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in view of Gap evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged, and no other counter-proof exists.

A. On November 10, 1993, on the part of the Plaintiff, who is one of his children, donated 7,149 square meters of land in ○○○○, Dong-dong, ○○○○○, and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant donation”), at the time of the donation, acquired KRW 443,647,629 of the obligation related to the instant real estate from Y○○ at the expense of the instant donation.

B. On November 13, 1993, Ma○○ died. Ma○○○, as his wife, was the Plaintiff and Ma○○○○, Matern○, Matern○, Matern○, and Matern○, as his own child, jointly inherited the Matern○’s property.

C. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), the gift of this case is an onerous donation, and thus, it is subject to the transfer income tax as it falls under the transfer of assets at a cost within the scope of KRW 443,647,629, which is an amount to be borne by the Plaintiff among the real estate of this case. Thus, the transfer income tax should be imposed on ○○ State

D. However, as the Defendant died on November 13, 1993, on March 10, 2006, the Defendant calculated the tax base and its tax amount of capital gains tax on KRW 443,647,629, which is the shares to be borne by the instant real estate on March 10, 2006 as KRW 258,17,551, and KRW 158,997,183, and then issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 86,510,360 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s inheritance share among the heir of YO, who is the heir of YO, among them (hereinafter “disposition of this case”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition in accordance with the relevant statutes.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that “The tax authority imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as a taxpayer because it is a national tax for which the tax authority determined the content of the tax liability on the taxpayer. Therefore, the taxation becomes final and conclusive only when the tax authority imposed the tax base and tax rate on the taxpayer, and the tax notice stating the necessary matters is notified to the taxpayer. However, the Defendant merely stated the Plaintiff as the taxpayer at the tax notice, and the Defendant imposed the tax on the Plaintiff as the taxpayer at the time of the resolution of capital gains tax that establishes the content of the tax liability. As such, there was no fact that the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff does not exist, and thus, should be revoked unlawfully.”

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1)Tax obligations are naturally established by satisfying the requirements for taxation under individual tax law. Generally, the requirements for taxation are comprised of four elements, such as ① taxable items, ② taxpayers, ③ tax bases, ④ tax rates, and ④ tax rates, and when the requirements for taxation are satisfied, the tax authorities or taxpayers should intervene in the special activities of the tax authorities or taxpayers. However, in order for the tax authorities to claim the performance of abstract tax obligations, they must take a final procedure to specifically examine and confirm the contents of the abstract tax obligations established by the tax authorities and to determine specific tax obligations in accordance with such procedure is an act of confirmation under administrative law. However, the transfer income tax was revised by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999 and takes the method of imposition prior to the enforcement of January 1, 200, so it becomes definite when the tax authorities determine the tax base and tax amount.

On the other hand, in a case where a tax notice is given by means of taxation, the relevant tax notice is a procedure for specifically realizing the details of tax liabilities already established and notifying the relevant taxpayer of such fact. However, in order to determine the tax liability, taxation is necessary. The tax notice also has the nature of a tax disposition that establishes the tax obligation as an effective requirement of taxation or external requirement for the establishment thereof, and the nature of a final tax disposition that generates the effect of the tax liability, and the nature of a final tax disposition that orders the performance of tax liabilities (payment). Therefore, any defect in the notice of tax payment leads to both a tax disposition and a collection disposition. Such legal principle applies to a case where a tax office makes a decision of imposition without filing a tax return or by filing a false return

(2) We examine the following facts: (a) No. 1, No. 2, No. 3-2, and No. 1, and No. 3-2; (b) the Defendant prepared a written resolution of decision on capital gains tax reverting to 1993 in the disposition of this case; (c) entered the name column of the taxpayer as her pregnant ○○ (her heir ○○○○○○) and entered the resident registration number and address in the resident registration number and address column; and (d) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition on March 10, 206 upon a tax payment notice meeting the legitimate requirements stating the Plaintiff’s name; (c) on that date, the Defendant stated the Plaintiff’s details by succession of ○○○ and six (6) persons succeeding to capital gains tax liability due to inheritance in addition to the notice of tax payment on the instant disposition; and (d) one copy of the “written notification of tax liability for each heir”; and (e) the Plaintiff’s heir did not have any other obligation to assume the obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Act.

According to the above facts, although the defendant entered the name, address, and resident registration number of the rhetor in the decision resolution on the disposition of this case, since the obligation to pay capital gains tax on ○○○○, an inheritee succeeded to the heir such as the plaintiff, etc., the amount of tax should be calculated by indicating the name of the rhetor under convenience in calculating the total amount of tax. In particular, the defendant expressed that he was the heir, including the plaintiff, in the name and side of the rupture ○○ of the decision resolution on the disposition of this case, and sent the notice of tax payment indicating the counterparty as the plaintiff and the notice of succession to tax liability to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant would be deemed to have received legitimate disposition on the capital gains tax of this case against the plaintiff through the preparation of the decision resolution on the disposition of this case and the notice of tax payment and the notice of succession to tax liability. Therefore, the decision of this case is unlawful on the ground that the decision of capital gains tax on the plaintiff was not made.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.