Where only the total amount of rent for land and buildings is known, whether the division of rent for land and buildings shall be calculated in proportion to the value based on the standard market price (affirmative)

The total amount of rent for land and buildings may be known, but if the rent for land and buildings are not divided, the division shall be calculated in proportion to the value based on the standard market price of the land and buildings, unless there are special circumstances to the extent that the ratio is deemed remarkably unreasonable.

Articles 29-2(1) and 29-4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; see Article 2(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) (see Article 31(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1435 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2056) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1817 delivered on December 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 709) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3524 delivered on March 14, 1997 (the same purport)

immigration rules

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu704 delivered on January 18, 1996

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1817 delivered on December 22, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The total amount of rent for land and buildings may be known, but if the rent for land and buildings are not divided, the division shall be calculated in proportion to the value based on the standard market price of the land and buildings, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the ratio is remarkably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1435 delivered on June 11, 1993). In the same purport, the court below determined that the measure of calculating the gift value of this case by calculating the rent for land and buildings according to the standard market price is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are dismissed.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the evidence adopted by the court below in its decision and recognizing facts as stated in its decision, the court below was just in holding that the time of donation in this case was the beginning of December 198, when the building was actually completed, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. The grounds of appeal on this point are not accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

As long as the time of donation of the building of this case is deemed to be when the building of this case is actually completed, the calculation of donation price should be based on this time, and the use and profit-making period of the building of this case should not be based after 10 years have elapsed since the expiration of the donation price. In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that in calculating the donation price of this case, the remaining rate should be multiplied by the standard market price of the building of this case by 10 years after the base price adjustment guidelines, and there is no error in matters of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles. The ground of appeal as to this point is rejected.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)