1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 16,890,580 against the Plaintiff on April 7, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff received the donation of the land, etc. indicated in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) from his father B, which is farmland (hereinafter “the instant farmland”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant farmland on May 30, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the said donation on August 31, 2012. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff reported that the instant donation to the Defendant constitutes “the donation of farmland to children of farming, which is subject to the reduction of or exemption from the gift tax,” and did not pay the gift tax on the instant donation by reporting that the portion concerning the instant donation constituted “the donation of farmland to children of farming, which is subject to the reduction of or exemption from the gift tax” under Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant imposed KRW 16,890,580 on the gift of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a farming child and the gift of this case does not fall under the reduction of and exemption from the gift tax according to the result of a comprehensive audit by the Central Regional Tax Office.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”)

C. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on July 7, 2014 regarding the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 24 through 31, Gap evidence 34, 35, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been employed as a police assigned for special guard for three or more years retroactively from the date of the donation of this case, and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, etc. with agricultural machinery, such as Trackers, etc. for three day off a week including a weekend or a new wall for a day.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a farming child under Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and this case is based on a different premise.