증여세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the submission or addition of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(hereinafter the meaning of the terms used in this subparagraph is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. the term "loans" in Section 9 of Part 7, which was used or added on February 1, 200, shall be deemed to be "loans 1,836,76,040," and the term "1,824,76,000, (2,886,76,040, from 2005 to 2006, from 2005 to 2006, from 1,050,000, from 637,941,640, which was recognized to have been repaid as bank loans on June 1, 2009," and the term "1,824,000, from 2005 to 2005 to 37,941,640, respectively."
Part 8 "A" in Part 19 shall be raised to "Plaintiff".
The 9th parallel 3 to 10th parallel 7 shall be followed as follows:
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to ① evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 19 through 23, evidence Nos. 29-1, 2, and 6 of evidence Nos. 29-2, and evidence No. 1, and witness Nos. 1, 6 of the first instance trial, one bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (SM) was deposited with KRW 1.3 billion on September 5, 2008; the key issue amount was paid from the above one bank account on September 11, 2008; the above one bank account was settled and paid for various public charges, communications charges, small donations, etc.; M&A deposited KRW 1.3 billion on the aggregate of the price of work requested by the Plaintiff’s husband through JD.
② Furthermore, KRW 1.3 billion, which was deposited by M Co., Ltd. into the said one bank account in the Plaintiff’s name, is the sales price of the key picture donated by M Co., Ltd. at the time of marriage in 1984, and actually reverted to the Plaintiff.