The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Examining the provisions of Article 21(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 29-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in case where a person liable to pay the gift tax receives a donation of land which is registered as effective requirements prior to the transfer of real rights, it is reasonable to view that the time of acquisition of donated property, which is the time when the person liable to pay the gift tax, is established, should be the time of transfer of ownership unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu25, Jul. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu783, Nov. 12, 1985). This does not change the conclusion on the ground that the donation is written, or the donee has occupied and managed donated property

In the same view, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff received the land from the non-party, who is the father of December 20, 1974, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation from October 24, 1983 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate Act. The extinctive prescription of the gift tax of this case is completed upon the lapse of five years from October 24, 1983 after the lapse of six months from the date following the filing period under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act. The disposition of this case was completed before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the extinctive prescription. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the date of establishment of the obligation to pay the gift tax, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)