2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The KimCC is a member of the AAC branch of the AAC and the members of the AAC branch of the AAC branch of the AAC branch of the AAC (hereinafter referred to as the “instant clan”). Until November 2012, KimCC held office as the general director of the instant clan and the chairperson of the Religious Preservation Committee in charge of the preservation and management of the real estate owned by the instant clan. The Plaintiff AA is the wife of the KimCC, and the Plaintiff KimAA and KimB are children of the KimCC.

B. The Plaintiffs reported the gift tax base on the date on which the “Gift” was entered in the “Date of Refusal of Claim by KimCC” (hereinafter “OOOO land, other than seven parcels, at the time of OOOO land, which was the donated property on July 19, 201, and received the donation of KRW 1 in total of the donation funds on March 12, 201, and KRW 2 in total of the donation funds on April 19, 2012). Accordingly, the Defendants reported the gift tax base on the date on which the “Gift Tax” was entered in the “Date of Report,” and accordingly, the Defendants determined and notified the amount of the “Gift Tax” on the same details to the Plaintiffs as gift tax.

C. The plaintiffs (1) were not donated by the plaintiffs EA and KimA as a donation from KimCC, and (2) the funds Nos. 1 and 2 were not donated by KimCC, but the funds of this case were not donated by the plaintiffs, and the purchase price of OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned were divided-owned.

D. Plaintiff KimA filed an objection on December 31, 2013 against the disposition of the head of the tax office on the instant disposition, but the application was dismissed on February 24, 2014. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on March 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 15 to 21 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Second, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The portion of gift tax on OO-land

1) Review of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The clan of this case was to create a continuous revenue source to conduct the business of the business of the business of the Kim E-E and to promote the development of real estate through the sale of real estate owned by the clan of this case and the purchase of new real estate. In the process, the clan of this case has title trusted real estate for the purpose of purchasing golf courses to the KimCC and its family members, who have been in charge of the management of real estate owned by the clan of this case, considering the convenience of business promotion, restrictions on the qualification to acquire farmland, tax burden related to real estate, etc.

B) On February 26, 2004, the clan of this case: (a) purchased 22 parcels of real estate located in OO from Macheon-si, including OO-si land, and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimCC on April 13, 2006; (c) subsequently, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of 1/2 shares of each of the OO land on July 19, 201, on the ground of the "donation on July 12, 2011". In this regard, the clan of this case donated the OO land to Plaintiff EA and KimA for a smooth business authorization and permission; (d) the above plaintiffs actively cooperate with the Kim Jong-si Kim Jong-si Kim, and (e) the minutes of the clan of this case and the minutes of the 1/2010 minutes of the OCC were prepared and sealed by the 204th minutes of the OCC, and (e) the 1/4th minutes of the resolution of this case.

C) The clan of this case asserted that KimCC had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of KimCC or the plaintiffs with respect to the real estate owned by the clan of this case, including the OO land and AAA land, and that it had arbitrarily sold or donated the real estate and used the purchase price individually. The investigation agency filed a complaint with the investigation agency under the suspicion of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). The head of Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in the Suwon District is deemed to have a real estate title trust relationship between the clan of this case and the plaintiffs or KimCC, but there is no evidence to prove that KimCC arbitrarily disposed of it and consumed it.

D) On the other hand, on September 16, 2013, the instant clan filed a lawsuit against the KimCC and the Plaintiffs claiming for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust or the invalidation of the cause thereof with respect to the real estate held in title trust by the instant clan, including the land of OO-dong, O-dong, and AA-ri land. On January 5, 2015, the instant court decided to recommend reconciliation, including the content that the Plaintiffs implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the instant clan land, O-dong building, and AA-ri land, and that such decision became final and conclusive on January 23, 2015.

2) According to the above facts, the clan of this case has been in title trust with the KimCC and the plaintiffs who purchased real estate in the course of promoting the golf course business, etc., and the OCC appears to have purchased and held title trust with KimCC in the course of implementing the golf course business. It appears that the KimCC had been delegated with the authority to manage, dispose of, and execute sale price for the clan properties, as the chairperson of the KimCC's clan clan, and that the name of the OO land was transferred from KimCC to the above plaintiffs with the minutes and resolution that the OO land was trusted to the above plaintiffs, and that there is no possibility that the KimCC and the plaintiff KimF, who was the financial director of the clan of this case, should have signed a confirmation document to the same effect, and that there is no need to recognize that the plaintiff's intention to cancel the registration of title trust with the above clan's own land because there is no further need to recognize that the plaintiff's intention to cancel the registration of title trust for the reason that the plaintiff's ownership of the above clan was transferred to the above clan's.

3) Therefore, it is unlawful for Defendant BB head of the tax office and the head of the OOO head of the tax office to refuse a claim for correction of the said Plaintiffs’ gift tax on the premise that Plaintiff AA and KimA received a donation of OO land from KimCC.

B. Part on gift tax on funds Nos. 1 and 2

1) According to the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) As seen earlier, the instant clan has title trusted real estate purchased for the purpose of golf course business to the Plaintiffs, who are the KimCC and its family members. KimCC, as the chairman of the Religious Preservation Committee, was delegated by the authority to dispose of the real estate owned by the instant clan, etc., and was managing a considerable amount of clan funds. However, the said funds were deposited into and withdrawn from the account opened in the name of KimCC itself or Plaintiff A, etc., and used the said funds to cover construction costs of the instant clan golf course, operating funds, and loans.

B) On September 5, 2011, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract to purchase the Odong building from the O Construction Co., Ltd. in KRW 2,712,693,80, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Plaintiff KimA with respect to the 5/10 shares among the O-dong buildings on March 12, 2012, under the name of Plaintiff KimA with respect to the 3/10 shares, and under the name of Plaintiff KimB with respect to the 2/10 shares, respectively. Of the purchase price of the O-dong building on March 12, 2012, the KRW 1.3 billion out of the purchase price of the O-dong building was paid as the money loaned from the O-dong bank under the name of Plaintiff JeonB with respect to the purchase of the O-dong building. Meanwhile, in relation to the purchase of the O-dong building, at the time when the Plaintiffs and KimCC’s seal was affixed to the above OE Association, it is not stated in the name of title trust.

C) On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the KimCC concluded a sales contract to purchase AAB land with KRW 4.8 billion, and on April 19, 2012, with respect to 50/100 of the AAB land, they completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimCC, with respect to the shares of KRW 20/100 of the 50/100 of the 20/100 of the 20/100 of the 20/100 of the purchase price of the AA land, respectively, under the name of Plaintiff KimA and KimB. On April 19, 2012, the 2 billion won of the purchase price of the 200,000 won of the 200,000 won of the 15/1000 of the purchase price of the 200,000 won of the 200,000,000 won of the 200,000.

D) As seen earlier, the clan of this case filed a complaint against KimCC on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) but was found not to have been subject to disposition of non-prosecution. The decision to recommend reconciliation, which included the fact that the plaintiffs implemented the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust with respect to the O-dong buildings and AA-ri land in the instant clan.

2) According to the above facts, the clan of this case has title trust with the KimCC and the plaintiffs with the real estate purchased in the course of promoting the golf course business, and the OOdong building and the land of AAAri also seems to have purchased in the process and held title trust with the plaintiffs. The remainder of the purchase price except for the portion paid as loans secured by each of the above real estate out of the purchase price of the OOdong building and the AAri land appears to have been procured through the sale price of the land owned by the existing clans. At the time of purchase of the OOdong building and the AAri land, there has been a confirmation of the fact that the plaintiffs and the KimCC confirmed that each of the above real estate was a property trusted by title trust, and the decision to recommend settlement that the plaintiffs implement the procedures for registration of ownership transfer for the cancellation of title trust with respect to the OO building and the land of AAri, the building and the land of the clan of this case shall be deemed to have been trusted by the

3) The Defendants asserted that as long as the Plaintiffs reported that they received a donation from KimCC, the Plaintiffs did not change the fact that they received cash from KimCC as long as they purchased O-dong building and AA-ri land by using their cash, the imposition of gift tax should be maintained. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs received the 1 and 2 funds from KimCC in cash or purchased O-dong building and A-ri land by using cash donated from KimCC. Rather, as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiffs merely received a title trust from the instant clan and received an O-dong building and AA-ri land from the instant clan (a part of the purchase price of the A-ri land was paid as a loan under the name of KimCC with the purchase price of the A-ri land as collateral, this is merely a loan relationship with the name trust incidental to real estate title trust, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the donation between KimCC and the Plaintiffs was established separately from the title trust. Accordingly, the Defendants’ claim that the Plaintiffs received a donation from KimCC, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, was not acceptable in proportion to the shares of the Plaintiff’s shares in title trust.

4) Therefore, under the premise that the Plaintiffs received donations from KimCC, the Defendants’ refusal of the Plaintiffs’ claim for correction of gift tax is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the dispositions of this case are illegal and all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.