1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that around May 2, 2005, the plaintiff lent 55 million won to the defendant with interest rate of 9% per annum, and that the defendant, the defendant, the non-party H, G, and the plaintiff et al. anticipated that the forest land and E forest land in the wife population D and E (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate in this case") will be incorporated into the market economy expected to be incorporated into the market economy expected zone, and the plaintiff would obtain profits from the joint purchase of the above land. Accordingly, the plaintiff's remittance of the investment amount of KRW 50 million and incidental expenses of KRW 5 million from the plaintiff does not borrow the above money.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff remitted KRW 55 million to the defendant on May 2, 2005, and the defendant borrowed KRW 55 million from the plaintiff on the same day to the plaintiff at 9% per annum on the same day and repaid until December 31, 2008.

It may be recognized that “the loan certificate in this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate in this case”) has been drawn up and issued.

B. As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein. In the event that there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall comprehensively consider the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753 delivered on June 11, 2002, etc.). C.

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant is likely to impose gift tax because he/she received large amounts of money from the joint investors because he/she was a professional owner at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate of this case from the tax accountant I.