Cho-2016-Gu-690 ( October 21, 2016)

Notice of designation of joint and several tax liability is lawful and there is no justifiable reason for exemption from penalty tax.

The notification of the designation of the donor of this case as a joint and several tax obligor is due process, and penalty tax to be borne by the donee due to the failure to pay gift tax should be borne within the scope of joint and several tax liability.

Article 4-2 of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Daegu District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-21932

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

2017.06.09

1, 2017.08

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 175,00,000,000, which was made against the Plaintiff on October 0, 2015, as of October 0, 2012, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,000,00,000, which was made against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2012, shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 00 Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office: AAA from October 0, 2014 to October 00, 2014, which is the wife of the Plaintiff.

AAA has received a total of KRW 0 billion from the Plaintiff while conducting a tax investigation with respect to the AA;

Considering that it was not reported, the Defendant notified the gift tax assessment data to the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, on October 0, 2015, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 175,000,000 on AA as of October 00, 2012, and KRW 1,000,000,000 (including respectively, penalty tax of KRW 00,000,000, and penalty tax of KRW 277,000,000 on the gift as of October 0, 2012) respectively.

C. Since then, AA was delinquent in the amount of KRW 674,00,000 among the above gift taxes, the Defendant: (a) deemed that AA was not capable of paying the amount in arrears after conducting a property investigation with respect to AA; (b) on October 00, 2015, the Defendant designated and notified the Plaintiff as a donor jointly and severally liable for tax payment; and (c) on May 20, 2015, imposed KRW 175,000,000, gift tax of KRW 1,709,000,000, which reverts to May 2012, 2012, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on October 0, 2015, but the objection was dismissed on October 00, 2015, and on October 00, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on October 0, 2016, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on October 0, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number for a case with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful as follows, and thus should be revoked.

1) Defects in the requisite entry of a tax notice

The notice of tax payment of the instant disposition is not a tax payment notice that has been given to AA, but the initial notice of tax payment, including the amount to be collected from the Plaintiff, the grounds for its calculation, and other necessary matters.

Since the notice of tax payment is merely an accompanying document, it is illegal (hereinafter referred to as the "section 1").

2) Defects in the disposition of gift tax on AA

The amount paid by the Plaintiff to AA is paid on the condition that the Plaintiff withdraws a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff. Since the settlement contract was made for settlement of disputes, it cannot be subject to gift tax, and as long as the imposition of gift tax against A is illegal, the disposition of this case against the Plaintiff is illegal (hereinafter referred to as "section 2").

3) Non-existence of joint payment obligation

The former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Law No. 15 December 15, 2015) for the Plaintiff, a donor, as follows:

Since the grounds for joint and several payment obligations under the subparagraphs of Article 4(4) have not occurred, the instant disposition is unlawful.

A) The Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00 directly conducted a tax investigation with respect to AA, and some gift tax was paid by AA, and administrative litigation (Tgu District Court 2015Guhap0000) against the Defendant.

The defendant was able to sufficiently confirm the domicile and residence of the AA, such as filing a complaint.

In other words, Article 4 (4) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not correspond to "where the donee is not aware of his domicile or residence" (hereinafter referred to as "Article 3-1").

B) The Defendant, who donated a large amount of KRW 0 billion, did not endeavor to collect delinquent local taxes from the Plaintiff without making adequate efforts to collect delinquent local taxes, and subsequently made the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. On October 0, 2016, the Plaintiff revealed the details of the property owned by the AA and collected delinquent local taxes.

Only after defects are selected as a person subject to investigation of property tracking for delinquent taxpayers and try to execute disposition on default.

A. As such, since the Defendant had the ability to pay gift tax and the Defendant could secure the tax claim through the disposition on default with respect to AA, it does not constitute “where it is difficult for a donee to pay gift tax even if he was delinquent due to the lack of the ability to pay gift tax” under Article 4(4)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Article 3-2”, and the above allegations are referred to as “section 3”).

(iv) any defect that included a penalty tax;

In light of the fact that the return and payment of gift tax exclusively depends on the will of the donee, that the penalty tax is a tax separate from the principal tax, and that the penalty tax has the nature of administrative sanctions against nonperformance of obligation under tax law, imposing the joint and several liability of penalty tax on the donor who is not the breach of duty is excessively harsh, penalty tax on the donee should be excluded from the joint and several tax liability of the donor (hereinafter referred to as the "Chapter 4").

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

Evidence Nos. 4 to 14, and Nos. 2 to 13 of the evidence mentioned above, and arguments

In full view of the overall purport, the following facts are recognized.

1) The reasons why the Plaintiff paid money to AA

A) On October 00, 201, AA, a legal spouse of the Plaintiff, filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff under the Daegu Family Court 201Dhap000. On October 00, 2012, AA, a spouse of the Plaintiff, agreed to receive cash of KRW 0 billion from the Plaintiff and transfer ownership of the building amounting to KRW 0 billion around the end of 00,01, and then withdrawn the said lawsuit on October 0, 2012.

B) Thereafter, around October 00, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with AA, instead of the building equivalent to KRW 0 billion, that AA paid KRW 0 billion in cash as the purchase price for the building, and AA would no longer exercise the right to divorce and division of property against the Plaintiff.

C) However, on October 0, 2014, AA filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, etc. (including division of property) with the Daegu Family Court 2014Dhap000 on the ground that the said agreement was concluded unfairly and null and void, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of AA on October 00, 2015. Accordingly, AA appealed with the Daegu High Court 2015Reu000, but the appeal was dismissed on October 00, 2016, while AA appealed with the Supreme Court 2016Meu000, the appeal was dismissed on October 00, 2017.

(2) The details of the service of a tax notice to A.

A) On October 0, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing gift tax on AA on the Defendant, and on October 0, 2015, sent registered mail to "Tgu-gu, 000 Dong-dong 000**00 Dong 0000 Dong 000 (hereinafter referred to as "00 Dong apartment"), which was the place of service requested by AAA, but returned on October 0, 2015.

B) The Defendant heard that “AA” from the CCC, which is an accountant of AB BB, is the husband (Plaintiff) who was living separately from the former husband, and was hospitalized in DD hospital due to AB’s disease. BB and BB’s office ( Daegu 00-Gu 00-5-ro 00,000) on February 23, 2015, the Defendant visited the above office on October 00, 2015 in order to issue a tax notice, but BB failed to serve a tax notice due to the failure of BB’s office.

C) On October 00, 2015, the Defendant visited the Dental Hospital, but from the hospital, “AAA was not hospitalized at the hospital.” On the same day, the Defendant visited the 'G 00, 000, 000 Dong 000, 000 (hereinafter referred to as '00 apartment houses'), which is the resident registration address of AAA, on the same day, issued a written confirmation that the Plaintiff and AA were seven years, and that the AA does not reside at the 00 apartment units. The Defendant visited the 00 apartment units again on the same day, but failed to issue a tax notice by the addressee’s absence.

D) The Defendant, on October 0, 2015, visited 00 apartments again, but failed to issue a tax payment notice due to the absence of the addressee.

E) Accordingly, the Defendant served a tax payment notice on October 0, 2015 by public notice.

(iii) default and financial status of AA in arrears;

A) AAB visited the Defendant on October 0, 2015, and paid only KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 gift tax. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a demand notice to AA on October 0, 2015, but the demand notice was returned, and the demand notice was returned on October 0, 2015 (payment period: October 0, 2015).

B) On October 0, 2015, upon the lapse of the due date for demand, the Defendant conducted the property investigation of AA on the part of October 0, 2015, and seized the instant shares as a result of the disposition on default against AA on October 0, 2015, confirming that the Plaintiff’s non-listed shares 2,000 shares issued by the 00 Producers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the non-listed shares”) as the representative director (hereinafter “the instant shares”) were the only property.

C) However, on October 0, 2015, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the instant shares in the name of “AA” were the shares that the Plaintiff held in title trust with AA, and that the title trust was terminated on October 0, 2015, and that the seizure of the instant shares was unreasonable.

D) On October 00, 2015, the Defendant received advice from superior agencies and advisory attorneys-at-law to designate the Plaintiff as a joint and several taxpayers, and issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.

E) On October 0, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the commissioner of a regional tax office of 00: (a) disclosing the details of the property owned by the AA and collecting delinquent taxes; and (b) collecting and claiming the amount of delinquent taxes. On October 0, 2016, the commissioner of a regional tax office of 00: (c) determined that the Plaintiff was suspected of hiding cash intentionally; (d) selected as a person subject to investigation on property of the delinquent taxpayer; and (e) planned to execute disposition on default in the future

The reply was sent.

F) Around October 0, 2014, Korea filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against EE on October 00, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2016Gahap0000) on the ground that AAA’s donation of 10,00 common shares of 00 shares issued by AAE and 5,000 common shares issued by AAE constitutes a fraudulent act. The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of the Republic of Korea on the ground that AAA was not in excess of its liabilities around October 0, 2014.

G) On October 00, 2015, AA filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking delivery of the instant shares by asserting that the instant shares were owned by it, and on October 00, 2015, the said court held that the instant shares were owned by AA on October 0, 2016.

The judgment against the losing party against the AA’s claim was rendered, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

4) Descriptions of the instant disposition

A) On October 00, 2015, the Defendant: (a) designated and notified the Plaintiff’s joint and several taxpayers (Evidence A2).

Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act attached Form 10 of the same Act shall be attached to a notice for tax payment of gift tax (A evidence 1, 2) and the gift tax was imposed.

B) The notice on the designation and notification of joint and several taxpayers is indicated as follows.

【Notice of Designation of Joint and Several Liability for Tax Payment】

Pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, I notify the Plaintiff, a donor, of the designation as a joint and several taxpayer as follows:

1. Matters notified to the donee (matters notified as objects of joint and several tax liability);

2. Reasons for designating the joint and several tax liability;

- Under Article 4(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the donee (principal taxpayer) does not have the ability to pay the amount in arrears of the gift tax so notified, and the donee cannot secure a tax claim even if a disposition on default is made against the donee, and thus the plaintiff (the donor) is a joint and several taxpayer.

3. A list of persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment.

D. Determination as to the First Claim

1) Actions under each subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that jointly and severally liable for payment of gift tax by donor

Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the head of a tax office shall issue a taxpayer a tax notice stating the period of taxation, items, amount of tax, and calculation thereof, the deadline for payment and place for payment of national taxes, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that a tax notice under Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act shall be issued to the donor in accordance with attached Form 10, and Article 4(6) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office shall inform the donor of the reason when he/she allows the donor of the payment of gift tax pursuant to paragraph (4).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and contents, the Defendant at the time of the instant disposition, pursuant to Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, issued a tax notice in attached Form 10 stating the date of attribution, tax items, tax base, tax rate, calculated tax amount, and payment deadline to the Plaintiff, and issued a notice of joint and several tax payment designated and notified in detail as a donee pursuant to Article 4(6) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of omission of the necessary matters to be stated in the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff’s tax notice does not include only the delinquent tax amount after deducting the already paid tax amount from the total gift tax payable by AA, but also the total amount of gift tax imposed by AA is specified with regard to AA. Therefore, it is necessary to issue a tax notice to the Plaintiff, who is a joint obligor.

It is argued that the entry is illegal because it is omitted.

However, for the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

① The legal nature of a joint and several liability for tax payment is not fundamentally different from a joint and several liability under the Civil Act, and thus, the donor and the donee are, in principle, liable to perform the entire gift tax together without a unique tax liability portion. Therefore, in a case where a cause under each subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act arises, a tax authority may notify the donor of the payment of the total amount of gift tax that the donee should have paid to the donor, and it does not necessarily require the donee to notify only the amount of delinquent tax remaining after the

② Where a notice of tax payment is issued based on a notice of tax payment in the form of national tax, the duty payment notice also has the nature of a disposition ordering the donee and donor to pay the determined amount of tax. If the customs office notifies only the remaining amount of tax after deducting the already paid amount of tax from the total determined amount of tax, it is combined with a disposition imposing the total amount of tax and the collection disposition of the remaining amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu111, Jan. 29, 1985). Therefore, the determination of reduction by the tax office or the taxpayer performed a part of the amount of tax, does not constitute correction of the determined amount of tax based on the tax base. Furthermore, the imposition disposition of gift tax on the donee and the gift tax jointly and severally liable for the donor, are separate dispositions, and the tax office should have imposed the total amount of tax on the donee and donor, and it cannot be deemed that there is no illegality in the determination of the donee’s obligation to deduct the total amount of tax from the total amount of tax to be paid by the donee.

③ The Plaintiff’s assertion is understood as “the purport that a joint and several tax liability should be imposed only on the remaining remaining tax amount after deducting the partial tax amount paid by the donee, on the premise that the donor’s joint and several tax liability has the nature as a supplementary obligation attached to the principal tax liability, such as the secondary tax liability.”

However, Article 4 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act explicitly provides that only "Gift tax" shall be the object of joint and several tax liability, while the secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be the second tax liability for "underpaid amount" that has not been collected from the main taxpayer (see Articles 38, 39, 40, and 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Where statutory requirements are satisfied with regard to a donor's joint and several tax liability for gift tax, a donor and a donee shall be jointly liable for tax liability. However, Article 2 (11) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "where a taxpayer is unable to fulfill his/her tax liability, a taxpayer shall be jointly and severally liable for tax liability on behalf of the main taxpayer." In light of the fact that the second taxpayer bears the tax liability on behalf of the main taxpayer, the second taxpayer shall be jointly and severally liable for tax liability, and the entire taxpayer's joint and several tax liability to pay within the scope of one of the joint and several taxpayers shall not be accepted.

④ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that notice of joint and several liability for payment of gift tax under the Enforcement Standards of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, published by the National Tax Service, ought to be made by means of tax payment notice pursuant to attached Form 12 pursuant to Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act by applying mutatis mutandis the method of payment notice to the secondary taxpayer. However, the above enforcement standards merely stipulate the administrative agency’s internal rules for handling affairs, and thus are not effective externally by the court or the general public. (iii) As seen earlier, the donor’s joint and several liability for payment of gift tax is clearly distinguishable from the secondary liability for tax payment under Article 12 of the National

3) Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 485 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that a notice of payment under Article 12(1) of the Act shall be in attached Form 12, and Article 12(2) provides that a notice of payment shall be accompanied by a notice of payment in attached Form 10. The notice of payment in attached Form 10 has been interpreted as a notice of tax payment for the principal taxpayer. This is similar to a case where a notice of joint and several tax payment is given to a donor as in this case, and a notice of payment in attached Form 10 is to be accompanied by a notice of tax payment with the same tax amount as a notice of tax payment for a donee. Considering the above, the above enforcement standard was prepared, and the above enforcement standard was completely amended as at the time, and the above enforcement standard was entirely different from the case of a secondary taxpayer (the defendant also stated by the National Tax Service’s response from the superior agency).

⑤ According to Article 10 of the former Regulations on the Handling of National Taxes (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 2057, Jun. 24, 2014); a tax payment notice is printed out in a computer and issued number automatically; and the Defendant is also automatically assigned a tax payment notice.

The Plaintiff issued a tax payment notice of the same issue number as the issuing number of the tax payment notice to AA. As such, in light of the Defendant’s practical practice, the details of the tax payment notice to the donee are also issued to the donor. However, as seen earlier, the details of the donee’s tax amount in arrears, etc. can be verified by the donor through the contents indicated in the notice of joint and several tax liability designation and notice, and there are no defects or unreasonable points in violating the aforementioned statutes.

6) Even if the Defendant’s tax notice issued by AA appears to be any defect that only the remaining tax amount after the deduction is made, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned defect constitutes a defect to the extent that the tax assessment itself should be revoked, in full view of the following: (a) it is difficult to deem that there is any unfavorable part in the Plaintiff’s defense right or tax litigation procedure; (b) the relationship between the donor and donee; (c) the nature of the gift tax; (d) the purport of imposing a joint and several tax liability for gift tax; (e) the purpose of imposing a gift tax administration; (e) the fairness of tax administration; (e) the purpose of issuing a tax notice prepared to inform the taxpayers of the details of the disposition; and (e) the level of tax administration and practice.

E. Determination as to the second proposal

1) Article 2(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is a gift tax taxable subject to gift tax.

As of the date of donation, a person who received property as a donation refers to a person who has a domicile or principal office in the Republic of Korea as of the date of donation, and Paragraph (3) refers to a gratuitous transfer (including transfer at a remarkably low price) of tangible and intangible property (including transfer at a remarkably low price) to another person by direct or indirect means, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of the act or transaction, or an increase in the value of another person's property by the contribution. As such, donation under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act refers to a contract to make property free of charge, i.e., a donation under the Civil Act, as in the case of donation under the Civil Act, i.e., a contract to make property free of charge, i., a contract to receive a contribution from the other party in a mutual exchange or a quid pro quo relationship, and the issue of whether the donation was made in this context should be determined by observing all processes from the formation of the contract to the realization of the claim in accordance with the effect of the contract.

2) Under such premise, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4.2 billion on the condition that AA withdraws a divorce lawsuit and a lawsuit claiming division of property filed against her own. In the process, there was no increase in the Plaintiff’s property or any benefit corresponding thereto. On the contrary, while AA was in the process, there was no contribution or loss of property in a compensatory relationship corresponding to the above KRW 0.0 billion. Thus, the payment of KRW 0 billion cannot be deemed an act of compensatory exchange or compensatory relationship. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s second proposal is without merit.

F. Determination as to the third proposal

1) Organization of issues

The Plaintiff asserts through Chapter 3-1 and Chapter 3-2 that all of the grounds for Article 4 (4) 1 and 2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act do not exist. If any of the grounds for the above subparagraphs exists, the disposition of this case exists only when any of the grounds for the above subparagraphs. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to examine whether the disposition of this case constitutes "where the donee is deemed incapable of paying gift tax and it is difficult to secure a tax claim even if the disposition of arrears is made due to the disposition of arrears."

2) Relevant legal principles

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is a taxable person. However, in a case where it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party cannot be readily concluded to be an unlawful disposition that lacks the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

3) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, considering the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, AA, a donee, around October 0, 2015, designated the Plaintiff as a joint and several tax obligor, was found to have satisfied the fact that: (a) the Defendant did not have the ability to pay gift tax; and (b) the Defendant was unable to secure a tax claim even if a disposition was issued against AA to collect delinquent taxes; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone, it is difficult to deem that the opposing circumstance was proved, such as that the said facts are inappropriate for applying the empirical rule. The Plaintiff’s third proposal is without merit.

① On October 0, 2015, the Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 1,000,000,000 on AA:

AA paid only KRW 1.20 billion among them on October 0, 2015. The Defendant served a demand notice on October 0, 2015, but the Defendant failed to pay the remaining tax after the expiration of the demand notice (the same shall apply to the present time).

② Upon the lapse of the demand deadline on October 0, 2015, the Defendant conducted a property investigation into AA.

C. As a result of property investigation, the land and buildings purchased on October 0, 2013 by AA 00-Gu 00-dong 00-dong 00-dong 00,000,000 won was disposed of on October 0, 2015. The transfer proceeds were transferred to relatives and their descendants, such as BB (AA’s ASEAN’s son), FF (AA’s son), EE (AA’s own son), etc., or were used individually by AA, and were not remaining as financial assets under the name of AA. 50,00 non-listed stocks issued under the name of AA (300,000,000,000 won), and the non-listed stocks issued by the 500-party 10,000,000 won (70,000,000 won) were donated to the non-party 2,014.

③ On October 0, 2015, the Defendant seized the instant shares to secure a gift tax claim against AA. However, on October 0, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed his/her opinion to the effect that the instant shares in the name of “AA” were the shares trusted by the Plaintiff to AA, and that the title trust was terminated on March 2, 2015, and thus, the seizure of the instant shares was unreasonable. In addition, in the relevant civil litigation, the judgment was pronounced and finalized that the instant shares cannot be deemed as owned by the AA.

④ On October 00, 2014, AAA entered into a contract under which the right to lease on a deposit basis was established and completed the registration of establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis with respect to 00 apartment units from GG, with the amount of KRW 200,000,000,000 from January 20 to January 19, 2014; however, on October 00, 2015, the said right to lease on a deposit basis was terminated and the said right to lease was revoked. The specific account flow of KRW 200,000,000 was not confirmed, but it was confirmed that the financial account in the name of AA around October 0, 2015, as seen earlier, did not have any significant property.

G. Determination as to Section 4

1) The main text of Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where a donee falls under any of the following, the donor shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the gift tax payable by the donee.” However, it is not clear whether the donee includes the penalty tax to be paid by the donee on the subject of joint and several tax liability of the donor.

2) However, the main text of Article 47(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that additional taxes shall be the item of national tax under the relevant tax-related Act. Thus, additional taxes for AA are the item of the gift tax for AA; ② The legal nature of additional taxes can not be regarded as exclusively belonging to the person liable for payment of the principal tax, under the circumstances that the legal nature of the additional taxes is administrative sanction or administrative order punishment; ③ The plaintiff asserts that it is unreasonable to hold the donee liable for payment of the gift tax on the ground that the donee neglected the duty to report the gift tax or pay the gift tax in light of the fact that the donee cannot be liable for the gift tax if there is a justifiable reason that the donee cannot be liable for the gift. However, the main tax cannot be imposed on the donee's duty to pay the gift tax, which is newly stipulated in Article 44(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act for the purpose of excluding the specific tax item of the gift tax.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.