1. Of the lower judgment, the donor who was the director of the distribution tax office against the Plaintiff H and I was the donor of the Plaintiff H and I on December 30, 2010.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that gift tax shall be subject to the taxation of donated property from another person’s donation. Article 2(3) of the same Act provides that “Where it is deemed that a gift tax has been unjustly reduced by indirect method through a third party, or by performing two or more acts or transactions, or by going through a series of acts or transactions, it shall be deemed that a party directly trades, or by deeming that paragraph (3) is a continuous one act or transaction, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of such act or transaction.”

(4) The purport of the above provision is to impose gift tax according to the economic substance as to the act of tax avoidance, which unfairly reduces gift tax by involving a third party or undergoing a variety of transactions under Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, as seen above, is to deny the various stages of transactions, in order to achieve the effect of gift bypassing or changing transactions that are subject to gift tax, but to cope with the act of tax avoidance unfairly reducing gift tax, and to cope with such act of tax avoidance.