In a case where a person who had a job expected to have had a substantial income and actually acquired real estate, whether the portion of the acquisition fund, which was not clearly presented, can be deemed as having been donated to others (negative)

If it is recognized that the Plaintiff ( wife) has a job (a medical specialist) expected to have a substantial income, and that there was a substantial income therefrom, the part of the funds for acquiring real estate that the Plaintiff failed to present clearly the source of the funds for acquiring real estate, barring special circumstances, cannot be deemed as having been donated to another person, unless there is a special reason.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1434 Decided July 10, 1990; 90Nu6071 Decided October 26, 1990; 90Nu6075 Decided March 27, 1991; 90Nu1018 (Gong1991, 1308)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1401 delivered on January 31, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not have sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff received a donation from her husband with respect to the remaining funds except that the defendant was deemed to have been paid out of the funds for acquiring the real estate of this case, and rather, there was considerable income, such as opening and operating a hospital as a medical specialist with women and women, and at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case, there was a considerable amount of funds by selling the 54 foot apartment of Seoul Dondo at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case, and there was other considerable deposit balance. In the event that the plaintiff had an occupation expected to have a considerable income, and that there was an actual income, even if the plaintiff did not offer the funds required for the acquisition of the real estate of this case, the part of the funds required for acquiring the real estate of this case, which was not presented clearly to others, barring special circumstances, cannot be deemed to have been donated to the plaintiff, and therefore the tax disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff was partially

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for argument.

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 Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)