In case where the land was donated at the time of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), the starting point of reckoning the statute of limitations of gift tax

In the case of donation of land at the time of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), it is reasonable to deem the time of acquisition of the property by donation to be the time of transfer of ownership unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the statute of limitations of gift tax shall be calculated from the day after three months elapse from the time of completion of the registration of transfer of ownership under Article 20

Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Plaintiff

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu156 delivered on November 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of a donation of land, it is reasonable to view the time of acquisition of the property by donation under the Inheritance Tax Act as the time of transfer of ownership, barring special circumstances. Thus, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff was donated the land at the time of original sale from the non-party on April 11, 1973 and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate on August 21, 1981, the extinctive prescription of the gift tax of this case is to be completed after the lapse of five months from the date following the date when three months elapsed since the date when the period of report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) was enforced at the time of original sale of the land.

In this view, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was made before the completion of the extinctive prescription, and thus rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to the extinctive prescription, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the starting point of the period of extinctive prescription like the theory

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

Justices Shin Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)