early 2009 middle 4002 ( October 28, 2010)

land has been donated from the literature sources;

In full view of all circumstances, such as the fact that no separate loan certificate or related documents are prepared for the purchase price of land, no interest related to the purchase price is paid, etc., land was donated from the door Won.

2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax;

XX Same Guideology

O Head of tax office

May 31, 2011

July 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 250,472,70 on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2005, PAA, PB, PCC, PD, and EE established the Plaintiff with the aim of cultivating sublime spirit by looking at the history and tradition of the literature and promoting the prosperity of the 1st century.

B. On October 1, 2005, the Plaintiff decided to acquire the land of this case as the land of this case, on October 1, 2005, Gyeonggi XX-Gun 1-18 square meters, and 1-2 farm land of this Ri 1-2,128 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) as the land of this case. On October 27, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground that he purchased the land of this case from the HF to 730,000,000 won.

C. On July 2, 2009, the Defendant received 730,000,000 won for the purchase price of the instant land from YongB, which is the cause of the instant disposition, from the Plaintiff, and imposed 250,472,70 won for gift tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff borrowed the purchase price of the land of this case from YongB. However, since the land of this case was sold or no profit accrued, and thus, it was not repaid, the disposition of this case based on the premise of donation is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) There is no dispute between the parties that used BB paid KRW 730,000,00 to HF, a direct seller. In full view of all circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff and HB did not prepare separate borrowings or relevant documents regarding the purchase price of the instant land between the Plaintiff and HB, and that the Plaintiff did not pay any interest related to the said purchase price, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received a donation of KRW 730,000,000 from the purchase price of the instant land from HB, and barring any special circumstance, the instant disposition is lawful.

2) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant did not constitute an organization that deemed the Plaintiff as a juristic person, and thus, the gift tax was imposed by deeming the Plaintiff as one resident, and that the imposition of gift tax cannot be applied to the imposition of gift tax.

However, Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that gift tax shall be imposed on a person who donated property. Thus, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff, a donee, is lawful (According to the survey written before the instant disposition is rendered by the Defendant, stating that the instant disposition should be rendered by deeming the Plaintiff as a resident who is not a juristic person pursuant to the Income Tax Act, but it appears to be written by mistake in the application of statutes).

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case imposed on the Plaintiff is unlawful since the Plaintiff was merely an organization on the document and there is no substance. However, in light of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff formed and constituted the door-to-door rule with a lineal ascendant or descendant of 34 years old who is regular timelights as its members. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff constitutes an unincorporated association among the door that is composed of its members. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff was duly organized and completed the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was merely an organization on the document of this case without any substance is in

3. Conclusion

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