1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs ordering cancellation is revoked.

Defendant.

"1. Grounds for the decision of this court, which has partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance";

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion;

(b) Relevant statutes shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (as from 7th to 4th 12th eth eth eth eth e.

Judgment of this Court

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax, inasmuch as the deposit in the name of a donor, which is recognized as a donor by the tax authority, is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of the taxpayer, it is necessary to prove such fact to the taxpayer

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). Here, the necessity of proof to be borne by a taxpayer is proved by proving the existence of a separate fact that is not consistent with the presumed fact and is not relevant to the fact and is subject to taxation.

Since it interferes with the application of the rule of experience to presume the facts, the degree of proof is sufficient if it is sufficient to judge's suspicion of the existence of presumed facts.

B. As to the instant case, the fact that the key issue amount was withdrawn from the deceased’s account and transferred from the deceased’s account to the Plaintiffs’ deposit account is as seen earlier, it is presumed that the donation was made from the deceased to the Plaintiffs.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 12 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul witness of the first instance trial, Eul witness of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of testimony and arguments, the issue amount of this case is financial resources for the establishment and operation of the non-party medical corporation, not mere donation by the deceased.