2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, ○○○○ (the south, 190.08.31.), ○○○ (the south, 190.04.24) and ○○○ (the 190.24.19) are children of ○○ (the 190.02.10.10) and ○○○ (the 2009.26.1.26).

B. On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 15, 200 after obtaining a decision to grant a successful bid price of KRW 1.066 billion with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) in the voluntary auction procedure on July 31, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after receiving a decision to grant a successful bid price of KRW 1.066,100,000, and thereafter, entrusted the management of the instant real estate to the head of South

C. The Defendant deposited KRW 764,364,545 with the acquisition fund of the instant real estate from the ○○ bank account in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ account. From the above ○○○ account, KRW 40,323,456 was transferred to the ○○ bank account in the name of the Plaintiff and used in paying interest on the instant loan (total amounting to KRW 804,687,90), and the Plaintiff claimed for a tax investigation of KRW 225,129,460 with the gift tax of 200, KRW 24,43,080 with the gift tax of 201, KRW 24,43,080 with the gift tax of 201, KRW 96,90 with the gift tax of 251,459,457 with the gift tax of 202.30,000, not the Defendant claimed for a tax investigation of title trust.

D. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant received a gift of KRW 741,022,540 from the Plaintiff on December 15, 200, the Plaintiff received a gift of KRW 741,02,540 from ○○○, South ○○○ on December 15, 200, and KRW 225,129,460 (=determined tax amount of KRW 160,806,762 + Additional tax for negligent return + KRW 32,161,352 + Additional tax for unfaithful payment of KRW 32,161,352);

On December 15, 2001, KRW 58,80,770 was donated by ○○○○○, and received KRW 24,43,087, and KRW 4,861,680, September 17, 2002, and imposed KRW 1,896,904, which was donated in 202 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

4. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on August 13, 2013, and the Plaintiff dismissed the request on October 11, 2013.

was received.

[In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition, which was made on the ground that ○○○○ donated part of the acquisition funds of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, was unlawful for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, and the acquisition fund also was disbursed as revenue from the workplace of the father ○○○○○○, which was deposited in the account in the name of the head of the Namnam ○○○○○, and thus, the father ○○ actually paid the acquisition fund of the real estate. The Plaintiff is the title trustee of the instant real estate. Even if the title trust agreement is null and void because it conflicts with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

② Even if the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s donation of the acquisition fund of the instant real estate from the father ○○○, which was not a donation from the ○○○○.

(b) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Funds to acquire the instant real estate

A) On July 24, 2000, 2000, ○○○○ deposited KRW 100 million from the account in one’s own name as a check, and the Plaintiff received and paid the instant real estate as a security deposit for auction.

B) From the above ○○ bank account under the name of ○○○○○, KRW 592,826,545 on December 14, 200 deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the name of ○ bank. The Plaintiff received a loan from ○ bank and deposited KRW 450,000 on December 15, 200 with the Plaintiff’s account under the name of ○○ bank. KRW 445,545,455 on the above loan deposited KRW 1,038,372,00 on the same day (i.e., KRW 592,826,545 won + KRW 445,545 won). The Plaintiff paid the registration tax (including education tax) of this case on the same day.

C) After that, acquisition tax (including special rural development tax) 23,342,000 won was collected on January 15, 2001 from the bank account in the name of ○○○○○○.

D) From January 15, 2001 to September 17, 2002, KRW 40,323,456 was transferred from the said bank account under the name of ○○○○○○○ to the Plaintiff’s account, and was used to pay interest on loans from the said ○○ bank.

2) Management of the instant real estate

A) The Plaintiff was registered as the location of the instant real estate on August 2, 200, and as the real estate leasing business on October 18, 2000. The Plaintiff reported and paid the comprehensive income tax due to the real estate lease business in 2001 to the part belonging to the year 2003 and the public bath service business.

B) In managing the instant real estate by entering into a lease agreement, ○○○○, South-Nam received lease deposit, rent, etc., and repaid all the principal and interest of the instant Plaintiff’s bank from December 15, 200 to September 7, 2012, including KRW 494,071, and 4.

3) Transfer of ownership on the instant real estate

A) On October 10, 2002, ○○○○○ and ○○○, a mother of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of creation of a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million on the instant real estate from ○○ Saemaul Savings Depository without the Plaintiff’s consent, and did not repay the loan, the said community credit cooperative applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate. On January 30, 2003, when the voluntary auction procedure was commenced on January 30, 2003, the Plaintiff, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, a wife, had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate under the name of the Plaintiff’s sole name on February 28, 2003, each of 1/3 shares transfer was completed in the name of ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, and sonnam○.

B) Afterwards, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above community credit cooperatives claiming for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage, and received a favorable judgment on February 16, 2006. On June 13, 2006, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the above community credit cooperatives established regarding the instant real estate.

C) On December 24, 2009, after the mother’s death, the Plaintiff, the father’s ○○○, the south ○○○, and the south ○○○ entered into an agreement on property distribution with respect to the real estate owned by the father ○○○○, including real estate located in the mother’s name on or around December 24, 2009. The Plaintiff divided the instant real estate and the remaining real estate into the son ○○ and the son ○○.

D) On October 7, 2011, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ○○○○○ by filing a claim for ownership transfer registration with the Plaintiff, and on December 24, 2009, entered into an agreement on December 24, 2009 with respect to one third portion of the instant real estate.

The protocol of compromise has been drawn up.

E) As ○○○, South-Nam, did not implement an agreement on the instant real estate distribution while managing the instant real estate. As such, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ○○○, South-Nam, and South-Nam, claiming the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name as to 2/3 of the instant real estate on October 15, 2012.

F) After completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff acquired the lessor’s status under the lease agreement concluded by the head of Yong-nam ○○ as above.

【Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap’s statements in Gap’s 2, 4, 6, 9, Eul’s evidence 7 and 8(including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in its name in the voluntary auction procedure with respect to the instant real estate, and subsequently acted to be taken by the owner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual owner of the instant case is ○○, and the Plaintiff is merely a title trustee of the instant real estate is groundless.

① As long as the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate was obviously derived from the account in the name of ○○, South-Nam, and most of the acquisition funds of the instant real estate, it cannot be deemed that the source of the real estate purchase price is unclear.

② The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, and paid auction proceeds with loans from ○○ Bank in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appears to have obtained such loans under the recognition that the instant real estate was owned by itself. After acquiring the instant real estate, the Plaintiff directly operated a bath with business registration as a service business, a lease business, and reported and paid global income tax due to the said service business and a lease business.

③ The Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 60 million to the mother and wife on the instant real estate as collateral and delivered related documents. After doing so, the mother and wife set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million without the Plaintiff’s delegation, and actively exercised ownership, such as filing a lawsuit against community credit cooperatives seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security.

④ In light of the process of completing the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, the father, the ○○○○, the south ○○, and the west ○○○○, and the west ○○○ in order to transfer only the registered name to the ○○○○, the west ○○, and the west ○○○ in order to exercise the ownership of the said real estate, by concerns over compulsory execution, etc. on the said real estate, it appears not to have completed the registration of ownership transfer as above. In the process of the said registration of ownership transfer, there was no pecuniary burden on the ○○○, the ○○○○, the south ○○, and the son ○○○, and the son ○○, the son ○○, and the son ○○, the son ○○, upon the completion of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security transfer registration, have been again agreed to transfer the said real estate in the name of the Plaintiff.

⑤ On February 28, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with a third share of the instant real estate, and on December 28, 2003, the Defendant imposed KRW 56 million on the father ○○○ on December 28, 2007, and the father ○○ paid the tax imposed without any objection. Moreover, the father ○○ did not perform any act that could be taken as the owner of the instant real estate, unlike the Plaintiff.

6) According to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff was practically the owner of the instant real estate after having entered into a property division agreement in 2009, and there was no report on gift tax thereon.

2) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff received the instant real estate acquisition fund from the head of South-Nam ○○, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the deposit in the name of the head of South-Nam ○○ is owned by the father ○○○ is also without merit.

① Even if the Plaintiff did not have any special income at the time of acquiring the instant real estate, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had the ability to prepare funds for acquiring the instant real estate due to the lack of circumstances such as borrowing funds or raising funds by selling other real estate. On the other hand, the head-nam ○○ did not have any other occupation at the time of paying global income tax, etc. after filing registration of business and paying global income tax.

② The actual owner of a bank account in the name of ○○ in South-Nam pursuant to the real name bank system is presumed to be ○○ in South-Nam, and the Plaintiff did not present specific data on special circumstances that may be deemed as ○○○ even with the assertion that the bank account in the name of ○○ in South-Nam, is owned by ○○○○.

③ As seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed merely a title trustee, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003), the Plaintiff, the acquisitor of the instant real estate, is presumed to have been donated the acquisition fund from another person, and the financial data also conforms to this, and the Plaintiff fails to submit obvious data to support such presumption, in addition to the title trust assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.