The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

In light of 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 the land which is registered before the transfer of real rights is donated as a valid condition, it is reasonable to view that the time of acquisition of donated property, which is the time when the obligation to pay gift tax, is established, is the transfer registration of ownership unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6477 delivered on January 25, 191). This conclusion does not change because the land subject to donation, as a state-owned property, was first participated in the public sale process by the donor directly and paid the proceeds of the public sale under the name of the donee or purchased from another successful bidder to complete the procedure of change of the purchaser in the future, and the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time when the obligation to pay gift

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, since the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on each of the land of this case is not derived from the purpose of evading gift tax, the taxation of this case against the plaintiff is an unlawful act that does not meet the limit of deemed donation under the interpretation of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, and it is obvious that the plaintiff did not make any objection at all in the court of final appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below. This is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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 judges.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)