Real Estate donation between lineal ascendants and descendants;

The assertion that real estate donated by the lineal existence is returned to the title trust without submitting evidentiary materials cannot be accepted.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning a request for revocation of the disposition imposing surcharges shall be dismissed.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 5,284,10 against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2006 is revoked (the date of disposition written in the written complaint’s claim of KRW 5,284,10 appears to be erroneous and stated in November 20, 206, and the Plaintiff expressed all of the above KRW 5,284,110 as gift tax, but according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 1, it is recognized that the above amount includes additional tax and additional tax. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is also deemed to include seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of additional tax and additional tax).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 1, 2 and 2.

A. On December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on November 29, 2005, with respect to ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong 13th floor (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was donated the instant apartment, and issued a tax notice of KRW 5,284,110 in total, including KRW 3,950,00 and KRW 897,835 (additional tax amounting to KRW 790,00 + penalty tax amounting to KRW 107,835) on June 2, 2006, when the Plaintiff determined and notified the gift tax, etc. of KRW 4,847,830 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and when the Plaintiff did not pay it, the Defendant issued a tax notice of KRW 145,430 and increased additional tax amounting to KRW 290,850 on December 6, 2006.

2. Determination on whether a request for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues is legitimate

If a national or local tax is not paid by the due date, it refers to the amount to be collected in addition to the notified tax amount under the National Tax Collection Act and the Local Tax Act, and the amount to be collected in addition to the due date if it is not paid by the due date after the due date for payment. In the practice of tax administration, the notice of tax payment stating additional dues and increased additional dues are legally created and finalized after the due date for the tax payment without the due date for the tax payment. At the same time, the notification of the concept that the amount to be increased after the due date for the tax payment is merely recommended to be made within the due date for the taxpayer's convenience

Therefore, even if a notice of tax payment stated additional dues in the notice of tax payment, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition of additional dues is unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful in light of relevant statutes and grounds for disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant apartment was unlawful on the ground that it purchased the apartment as one’s own money and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of mother Kim○, and only returned to the Plaintiff’s name, and that the instant disposition was not a donation from Kim○○.

B. Determination

According to Article 44(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which stipulates that the property transferred to a lineal ascendant or descendant shall be presumed to have been donated by the lineal ascendant or descendant, and the presumption of ownership transfer registration, the plaintiff is presumed to have been transferred the apartment of this case from Kim ○○. Thus, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case at his own expense and returned the name after the title transfer to Kim ○○○○○, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it in the record.

Thus, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff was given a donation from Kim ○○, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues shall be dismissed, and all of the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as per Disposition.