(b) the requirements for the transferee to become a person having a special relationship with the transferor and the burden of proof as the relative of the transferor;

B. Under the provisions of Article 41(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981), Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1522 of Apr. 19, 1982), for the transferee to become a transferor's relative with the transferor, the fact that the transferee and the transferor are in the same workplace or workplace relationship with the transferor is insufficient, and the burden of proof is objectively obvious, and the tax authority bears the burden of proof.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on January 1, 1982, at the time of transferring the shares of the non-party 1,000 won per share of the non-party 1,00 won and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were working for the non-party 1,00 won at the time of transferring the shares of the non-party 1,00 won, but the non-party 1 was working for the non-party company, but later, he became the head office of the non-party 1, and later became the plaintiff's work for the non-party 2. The non-party 1 became the head office of the non-party 1,00, and he was not in a relationship with each other to transfer the shares to the non-party 1,00 at the time of the transfer of the shares. The court below determined that the non-party's disposition of this case was unlawful

According to Article 34-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), where a property is transferred to a person with a special relationship prescribed by the Presidential Decree as consideration for significantly low value, the transferor of the property shall be deemed to have donated an amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price in transferring the property to the transferee. Article 9(1) of the same Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act provides that the value of the inherited property shall be based on the current state at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Under Article 5(1) of the same Act, the value of the property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be calculated based on the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. However, only if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it is reasonable to interpret that the value of the property is an objective exchange price formed by a normal transaction.

However, in the event that a large volume transaction, such as listed stocks, is conducted every day, it shall not be deemed that the market price is the market price, but in the case of unlisted stocks, the objective exchange value is reflected in the market price, and in the case of unlisted stocks, it shall be deemed that the market price is the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu804, Feb. 25, 1986; 84Nu72, Jun. 10, 1986).

In addition, Article 41 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the person who has a special relationship as determined by the Presidential Decree" in Article 34-2 (1) of the Act refers to the person falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 11 (Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act) of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, provides that "the person who has a special relationship as determined by the Presidential Decree" in Article 34-2 (1) of the Act provides that "the person who has a relationship with the transferor" shall be "the person who is determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy," and Article 41 (2) 6 of the Decree provides that

However, in accordance with the above provisions, in order for the transferee to become a person in a special relationship with the transferor as the transferee's relative, the transferee and the transferor are not sufficient to be in the same workplace relationship with the same transferor, and the facts related thereto are objectively evident, and the burden of proof is on the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu890 delivered on November 11, 1986).

In light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the market price of the shares of this case is recognized as the amount as stated in its holding, and that there is no evidence that there is no relationship between the transferor and the transferee, and that there is no relationship between the transferor and the transferee, and that there is no relationship between the transferor and the transferee for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal fiction of donation to the person in a special relationship with the facts

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 Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)