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. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is one of the successors of the deceased, who is the vehicle of the deceased B (the deceased on November 25, 2016, hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. As a result of the investigation of the inheritance tax on the deceased from November 201 to May 2018, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office: (a) on December 8, 2014, the deceased’s account before the deceased’s death, KRW 200 million transferred from the deceased’s account to the Plaintiff’s account is included in the inherited property before the date of commencing the inheritance; (b) on the basis that the return of inheritance tax was omitted; and (c) notified the Defendant

C. On December 8, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received the gift of KRW 200 million from the Deceased, and on June 4, 2018, imposed a gift tax of KRW 30,948,00 (including penalty tax) on the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 19, 2018, but the appeal was dismissed on January 7, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number if there are several numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1 asserts that the plaintiff is primarily responsible for the following.

The plaintiff around January 2006 and around January 23, 2006 and the same year, upon the request of the deceased, borrowed KRW 200 million as it is necessary for purchase of vehicles and living expenses.

2. 8. Each 100 million won was leased to the Deceased, and on December 8, 2014, the deceased was repaid KRW 200 million.

Therefore, the instant disposition that was based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the above KRW 200 million was unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff asserts the following conjunctively. The Plaintiff asserts Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CBD D (hereinafter “instant loan”).

A) The Plaintiff is the owner, while the Plaintiff resides in the U.S., leased the instant loan to E without permission for two years, and the lease deposit of KRW 1.1 billion and monthly rent of KRW 4 million (the sum of rent of KRW 96 million between two years) was paid.

The Plaintiff resisted the deceased, and the Deceased.