[증여세부과처분무효확인][공1986.9.15.(784),1132]
The effects of a taxation disposition that is erroneous in factual basis due to erroneous taxation data;
If there is a defect that misleads the factual basis in the taxation disposition, even if the defect is serious, if it is not objectively clear, the taxation disposition can be revoked, and if it cannot be deemed null and void. If the misunderstanding of the factual basis arises from the erroneous taxation data, if the taxation data lacks the status and there is a possibility to objectively suspect the establishment or authenticity of the content thereof, it shall not be deemed that the misunderstanding of the factual basis due to the taxation data is objectively apparent and apparent.
Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Judgment of the court below]
The director of Busan District Office
Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu149 delivered on January 31, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. If there is a defect that misleads the factual basis of the taxation disposition, even if the defect is serious, if it is not objectively clear, the taxation disposition can be revoked, and it cannot be deemed null and void. If the misunderstanding of the factual basis is due to the erroneous taxation data, if it lacks the situation and there is a possibility of objectively suspecting the establishment or authenticity of the substance of the taxation data, it cannot be deemed that the misunderstanding of the factual basis due to the taxation data is objectively obvious and objectively apparent (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu286, Sept. 25, 1984).
2. As determined by the court below, if the registration of ownership was completed in the name of the non-party on the register and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the non-party on the register before the plaintiff, his mother, the tax authority, the defendant, regardless of the fact that the transferee paid the price for the property, if the transferee of the property transferred to his spouse, or his lineal ascendant or descendant, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the transferee at the time of transfer by the non-party pursuant to the main sentence of Article 34 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981). The above registration of ownership transfer was made on the same day, and the date of the registration of ownership transfer was made before the date of registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party, and there is no reason to suspect the establishment of the registry or the authenticity of the content thereof. Thus, even if the defendant deemed that the transfer between the non-party and the plaintiff was made by the above entry on the register, it cannot be viewed that the transfer of the gift tax in this case.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the apparentness of the tax disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete hearing.
3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)