1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence, proposed that the plaintiff acquired the property in the name of the plaintiff in Korea from the non-party Danabe, Japan, Japan, which was known to him in 1984 when he operated a restaurant in east, and agreed to do so. The non-party was a representative director of Japan, and the non-party did not claim that the non-party 2 acquired the property in this case from the non-party 2, a foreign owner of the above real estate under the former Act, for the purpose of acquiring the property in the name of the plaintiff from May 27, 1987 to September 11, 14 of the same year, and the non-party 2, which was the non-party 4,000 U.S.'s property in this case after purchasing the land in this case and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff 1,000,000 won, since the non-party 2 had no specific purpose of acquiring the property in this case's name of the property in this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deemed donation, such as theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of the reasoning. There is no reason to discuss.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In calculating the gift value of the instant real estate, the lower court premised on the premise that the said value should be calculated as at the time of the disposition of imposition, since there was no report under Article 20(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and held that the portion exceeding the tax amount calculated based on the value of donated property at the time of the disposition of imposition, among the instant disposition

However, with respect to the provisions of the main sentence of Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act before the amendment on December 26, 198, which applied mutatis mutandis with respect to gift tax, each Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on December 24, 1992, with respect to the main sentence of Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act before the amendment on December 31, 1990, and each Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to the main sentence of Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act before the amendment on December 31, 1990, the value of donated property shall be based on the current status as at

The judgment of the court below on the premise that in the absence of a report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the gift tax assessed as at the time of the imposition of the gift tax should be calculated on the basis of the donated property assessed as at the time of the imposition of the gift tax is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the above Inheritance Tax Act concerning the evaluation of the donated property. The argument that points out this issue is also included in the argument that

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)