[증여세등부과처분취소][공1994.2.15.(962),560]
A. In a case where there are errors or errors in part of the facts recognized at the time of the initial taxation, whether the previous taxation disposition should be revoked and new taxation disposition should be imposed
B. The case holding that even if the tax authority recognized the title truster as the donor at the time when the initial gift tax was imposed, the taxation disposition that recognized the donor as the donor was not unlawful since it did not change the basic fact of taxation within the scope of the same taxable cause.
(a)In the absence of prejudice to the identity of the original taxation disposition, if any error or error is found in part of the facts admitted at the time of the initial taxation disposition, it may correct the error or error of the previous findings of fact as a corrective disposition, and in this case it does not require revocation of the previous taxation disposition and new taxation disposition;
B. The case holding that even if the tax authority recognized the title truster as the donor at the time when the initial gift tax was imposed, the taxation disposition that recognized the donor as the donor was not unlawful since it did not change the basic fact of taxation within the scope of the same taxation cause.
Article 25(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7255 delivered on December 22, 1989 (Gong1990, 376) 91Nu13205 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong192, 3027)
Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee
Head of Western Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu25320 delivered on May 25, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
On the first ground for appeal
In light of the records, the registration of Nonparty 1 with respect to the land of this case at the time of the original adjudication is merely a registration for the entrustment of name, and its actual owner is Nonparty 2, who is the father of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs received the donation of the land of this case from the above Nonparty 2, who is the real owner, by completing the registration of ownership transfer from the above Nonparty 1 on April 11, 1990, by completing the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiffs as to the land of this case on April 11, 1990. There is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence
On the second ground for appeal
Where a mistake or error is found in part of the facts recognized at the time of the initial taxation within the extent not impairing the identity of the disposition, the tax authority may correct the error or error of the previous fact-finding as a correction disposition, and in such cases, it does not require the revocation of the previous taxation disposition and the new taxation disposition.
In the same purport, the court below found that the defendant imposed gift tax on the land of this case on the ground that the transfer registration of ownership was made on the ground that it was a taxable cause, and recognized the non-party 1, the title trustee, as the donor at the time of the initial imposition, as the father of the plaintiffs recognized the non-party 2 as the donor, the non-party 2, who is the title truster, as the donor, and the decision of correction did not change the basic fact of taxation within the scope of the same taxable cause. Therefore, the court below was just in holding that the tax disposition which the defendant recognized the non-party 1 as the donor cannot be deemed unlawful, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of 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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)