The meaning of “at the time of imposition of gift tax” under Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 1988) which is the time of the evaluation of the value of donated property and the time when the taxation data have not been sent to the competent tax authority.

The term "value at the time of imposing gift tax" in Articles 34-5 and 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) means the value at the time when the tax authority can levy gift tax with the knowledge of the existence of donated property. The "date when the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of donated property" means, in principle, the date when the relevant tax authority receives the relevant donated property: Provided, That if the taxation data is not sent to the relevant tax authority due to the failure of properly complying with the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the collection and procedures for taxation data or the official business guidelines of the national tax administrative agency, etc., which prescribe the collection and procedures for taxation data, it shall be deemed that the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of donated property, considering the objective taxation data, is deemed reasonable in light of the legislative intent of the above Act and Articles 15, 18 (1) and 19 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Articles 9(2) and 34-5 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and seven plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Head of Gangnam District Tax Office et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8592 delivered on May 3, 1990

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term "value at the time of imposing gift tax" under Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988), which shall apply mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act, means the value at the time of imposing gift tax, which is not at the time of arbitrary selection according to the convenience of taxes within the exclusion period of imposing gift tax, but at the time when the tax authority can impose gift tax with knowledge of the existence of donated property (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu6187, Nov. 9, 190; 90Nu2956, Nov. 27, 1990; 90Nu2956, Nov. 27, 1990). The term "value at the time of imposing gift tax" means the date on which the tax authority receives taxation data, which provides for the relevant property as donated property, and Article 22 through 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act, and Article 17 of the National Tax Act, if the tax authority does not objectively.

2. Review of the reasoning of the judgment below

On October 24, 1983, the court below found that the non-taxable shares were non-taxable by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 to the above head of the tax office at the time when the non-taxable shares were acquired by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2, and did not report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act. The head of Mapo Tax Office, a transfer agent of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 3, and Non-Party 4, who is the head of the tax office of the Seoul Trust Bank, did not confirm the acquisition of shares around 1984, and notified the non-taxable shares to the head of the above head of the tax office at the time when the non-taxable shares were non-taxable by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 to the head of the tax office at the time when the non-taxable shares were acquired by Non-Party 1 and the head of the above tax office at the time when the non-taxable shares were non-taxable. The above Defendants were not subject to a resolution on the non-taxable shares issued by the plaintiff 1 and the non-taxable shares.

In this case, it is doubtful whether the tax authority erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept at the time of imposing gift tax, as seen earlier, without specifically determining the date of receipt of the competent tax office’s report on the date of non-taxation resolution or the date of submission of the certificate as above, it is questionable that the instant shares were known by the tax authority on the date of submission of the non-taxation resolution or the date of submission of the certificate.

However, in this case, it is clear that the above data on the transfer of shares was received by the tax authority on April 25, 1984 and the date on which gift tax may be imposed on the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 2, and since April 25, 1984 when the return period for the transfer of shares expires, it is recognized that the above data on the transfer of shares was donated by the same donor on the same day as the donor of this case and his domicile are identical to the donor of this case. In light of the records, it is reasonable to view that the data on the transfer of shares could have been objectively sent on the date on which the data on the transfer of shares were sent. Meanwhile, according to records, it is evident that the stock price of the non-party company was increased every month, and it is less than the value on the date on which the above data on the transfer of shares was received or can be deemed to have been received at the tax authority, so only the defendant appealed the above judgment below did not affect the judgment below's erroneous judgment, and thus, it cannot be reversed.

In this case, the purport that the appraisal standard of donated property should be assessed on the basis of the time when the certificate from the Board of Audit and Inspection was sent to the Seoul Director of the Regional Tax Office, not at the time when the above non-taxation resolution was made or the certificate from the Board of Audit and Inspection was submitted, or this is not acceptable in light of the above legal principles.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)