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

A. The director of the regional tax office, from May 31, 2004 to July 10 of the same year, conducted a tax investigation on the stock change of ○○ Textiles Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Textiles”). As a result, ○○ Textiles reported that 1,500 shares of ○○○○ and ○○○○’s shares were transferred to the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ on January 10, 2001 at the time of filing a corporate tax return in the business year 2001, each of 1,50 shares of ○○○ and ○○○ was transferred to the Plaintiff and ○○○○, but actually stated in the statement on the change of shares, etc., the ○○○○ succeeded to the shares of ○○○ upon the death of ○○ on December 13, 200, and reported the Defendant to that effect that ○○ and that ○ was donated respectively to the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that Park○-○ donated 1,500 shares of ○ Textiles to the Plaintiff, and assessed the market value of the said shares at KRW 358,210 per share (the appraised value per share of shares owned by the largest shareholder) to be KRW 537,315,00, calculated the taxable value of donated shares at KRW 537,315,00, and on August 9, 2004, issued the instant disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 141,672,30 on the Plaintiff.

Facts not having any grounds for recognition, entry in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The party's assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Around 00 shares of ○ Textiles was each nominal trust between 1,500 shares and 1,50 shares, but the name of the trustee was changed without any tax avoidance purpose and 1,500 shares were respectively nominal trust to the Plaintiff and Gab○○○. However, the Defendant considered Gab○ as a donation of 1,50 shares to the Plaintiff, and issued the instant disposition.

(2) There was no change of entry in the name of the Plaintiff in the register of ○○ Textiles at the time of title trust to the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the pertinent shares were reported by entering the status of share transfer in the statement of stock transfer, it cannot be deemed that the pertinent shares were donated to the Plaintiff.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 19, 1994, ○○○’s husband’s husband established ○○ Textiles, and owned 2,000 shares out of 5,000 shares issued by the above company. Of the remaining 3,00 shares, 1,50 shares out of 3,00 shares were owned by ○○○, a former wife, 1,500 shares of 1,50 shares, and ○○ was transferred from the above 5 shares and owned all 1,50 shares. around 1999, ○○ was transferred from the above 1,250 shares. ○○ was appointed as a director at the time of the establishment of the above company, but was appointed as an auditor on the same day on the same day, but died on December 13, 200, and 1,500 shares were introduced to the Plaintiff and ○○ was married. < Amended by Act No. 6304, Mar. 24, 2004>

(2) On February 14, 2002, before filing a report of marriage with ○○○, the Plaintiff was appointed as a registration director of ○ Textiles. Gamb○○○○, an employee of ○○ Textiles, worked as an employee of ○○ Textiles, and on December 27, 200, the Plaintiff was appointed as an auditor of the above company ( January 11, 2001 on the date of registration) and then registered as an auditor.

(3) At the time of filing a report on the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax for the business year 1999 with the head of ○○ Textiles, as of December 31, 1999, the ○○○○○ submitted a detailed statement on the changes of stocks, etc., stating that ○○○ and ○○○○ owns 1,500 shares of ○○ Textiles, respectively, as of December 31, 1999. On March 31, 2002, at the time of filing a report on the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax for the business year of 2001, ○○○○, 1,500 shares of ○○○ Textiles owned by ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○ as of January 10, 201, and accordingly submitted a detailed statement on the changes of stocks, etc. along with the above documents.

(4) On October 29, 2004, the Plaintiff claimed that the gift tax should be imposed after receiving the gift tax deduction (spouse deduction) of the gift tax under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the following grounds: (a) upon request of the National Tax Tribunal on October 29, 2004, the Plaintiff received the shares of this case under the premise of marriage with her gambling ○○ and was a common example to demand property in reality at the time of the instant disposition; and (b) considering the fact that it was a common example to demand property at the time of marriage, she was in a de facto marital relationship at the time of the instant disposition; and (c) however, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s

Evidence Nos. 1-2, A 2-4, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

The following facts revealed in the facts of recognition: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the key shares on March 1, 2002 under the statement of stock fluctuation submitted by the ○○ Textiles at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year on March 31, 2002; (b) the Plaintiff asserted that there was no change of entry in the name of the Plaintiff on the list of ○○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s ○ Textiles’s 7th ○○○○○○ ○○○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

Although the Plaintiff alleged that Park○-○ was a title trust of the pertinent shares to the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove that Park○-○ exercised its right as the actual owner of the shares at issue. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that Park○-○ had exercised its right as the actual owner of the shares at issue, it is insufficient to recognize this by itself, and there is no other evidence sufficient to recognize this. Therefore, the above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.