1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s donation of property acquisition fund was presumed on the ground that, although the Plaintiff had earned a certain occupation from 1995 to 2005 and had received a loan, the amount of the income and the degree of the loan did not exceed KRW 2,286,00,000 in total acquisition value of each of the real estate of this case, and it is objectively apparent that the Plaintiff could not prepare the acquisition fund of each of the real estate of this case due to the amount of the income, etc., the Plaintiff failed to disclose the source of KRW 1,505,87,00 out of the acquisition fund, while the Plaintiff’s father, Nonparty 1 of the Plaintiff’s father, was recognized

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to presumption of gift of property acquisition funds.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 81-4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "tax officials shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize proper and fair taxation, and shall not abuse their authority to conduct an investigation for other purposes, etc." In Article 81-4 (1) of the same Act provides that "tax officials shall not conduct a reinvestigation for the same item of tax and for the same taxable period unless they fall under any of the following subparagraphs, unless they fall under any of the following subparagraphs," provided that "where an investigation is necessary against the other party to the transaction (Article 2)," "where an investigation is necessary against the other party to the transaction" (Article 3), "where an investigation is conducted with respect to the other party to the transaction for two or more business years," (Article 4) and subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2510, Jan. 24, 2012)" provides that "in accordance with the former Enforcement Decree No. 201

Based on the language and structure of these provisions, since a repeated tax investigation for the same item and taxable period may seriously infringe not only the freedom of taxpayer's business or legal stability, but also lead to abuse of the right to tax investigation, it is necessary to prohibit except in exceptional cases significantly contrary to the principle of fair taxation. Since re-audit under the provisions of Article 63-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is limited to cases where re-audit under the provisions of Article 81-4 (2) 1 through 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is exceptionally permitted, it is reasonable to strictly interpret the grounds and scope of such permission. In full view of the above, the "Various taxation data" in the "re-audit for the handling of various taxation data" under the former part of Article 63-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes means data prepared or acquired for the purpose of performing his/her duties by any institution other than the tax authority, which is not likely to abuse or arbitrarily exercise the right to tax investigation, it is reasonable to interpret such data as those data.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the defendant conducted a tax investigation to ascertain the source of funds for each of the real estate of this case with his father from August 24, 2009 to September 1, 2009. The plaintiff acquired the second real estate of this case from his non-party 2, 70 million won, and the third real estate of this case from his non-party 4 to the non-party 2, 926 million won, respectively. The acquisition price of the fourth real estate of this case was 220 million won, but it appears that the plaintiff was capable of acquiring the other real estate of this case by questioning the non-party 4 and the non-party 2,000 won, which was donated to the non-party 2,000 won, for the purpose of confirming that the sale price of the real estate of this case was 220 million won. The plaintiff's real estate of this case from February 10, 1995 to the non-party 3, who did not obtain gift tax of this case from his real estate of this case.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the taxation data that the Defendant prepared or acquired in the previous tax investigation does not constitute “taxation data” under the former part of Article 63-2 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, re-audit conducted in the audit process by the Gwangju Regional Tax Office based on such taxation data does not constitute “re-audit for the handling of various taxation data.”

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that a reinvestigation of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office constitutes “re-audit for the handling of various taxation data”. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “re-audit for the handling of various taxation data,” which is the exceptional reasons for re-audit prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)