The legitimacy of the presumption that the property was donated in cases where it is apparent that the property could not be re-written on its own in view of the income level or property status of the person who acquired the property (affirmative)

It is reasonable to presume that a person who has no special occupation or property has received a gift from a person who has the ability to return the property, and where his lineal ascendant, etc. is able to donate the property, it shall be presumed that such a person has received the gift from the person who has the ability to return the property. This legal doctrine shall equally apply to cases where it is objectively evident that the degree of income or other property status is extremely poor compared to the value of the property in question, even though there is income in a certain occupation, and it is objectively apparent that the degree of income or other property status

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Cho Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu1309 delivered on June 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is a legal principle that if the tax authority does not clearly prove the source of part of the fund in the course of the transaction, such as purchase of real estate by a person with a certain occupation and a considerable financial capacity, it shall not be presumed that the fund was given by his spouse or lineal ascendant (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu340 delivered on July 22, 1986). However, if a person without a special occupation or property fails to prove that he was given a donation, and if his lineal ascendant, etc. were given a donation only, it shall be presumed that he was given a donation from the person with the financial capacity of the party member (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu710 delivered on March 27, 1984). This legal principle is a legal principle that, although there is a certain occupation, income in a certain occupation, it cannot be objectively applied to the case where it is evident that the degree of income or the value of the relevant property is extremely low compared to that of the relevant property.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff graduated from a university and did not have any property or business experience in the total amount of the wage and salary income of 2,90,000 won since it was only one year after the plaintiff worked in a disciplinary action administered by his father with the former father, and paid 123,00,000 won as the down payment and the intermediate payment. The court below rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff borrowed from the non-party creation, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff would be paid the funds, except the above wage and salary income total amount of 123,00,000,000 won recognized by the defendant as the funding source from his father. In light of the records, the above disposition of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as a whole.

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 Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)