Whether it can be recognized that a person who had had a substantial occupation and income at the time of acquisition of property received a donation of the portion not clearly presented the source of the acquisition fund (negative)

As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority, so if the tax authority had a job expected to have a considerable income at the time of acquisition of the property and there was a person who actually had a considerable income therefrom, barring special circumstances, the portion not clearly presented the source of the fund for acquisition of the property cannot be deemed to have been donated to another person, barring special circumstances.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1018 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1308) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2106 Delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2180) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6673 Delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2555) (Gong194Ha, 3294) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9603 Delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3294)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu40033 delivered on December 1, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority. If there was an occupation expected to produce a considerable income at the time of acquisition of the property, and there was a person who actually had a considerable income therefrom, barring special circumstances, the part of the fund for acquisition of the property, which was not clearly presented the source, cannot be deemed to have been donated to another person, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu10018, Mar. 27, 1991; 94Nu9603, Nov. 8, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the part of the above disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff was partially donated to the above non-party on July 1, 1985, since the non-party, his father, was a non-party Dongyang Advertising Co., Ltd. who was a representative director around July 1, 1985 and worked for the non-party Dongyang Advertising Co., Ltd. with his father around July 1, 1985, and had a certain occupation and a considerable income until the 1990, since the plaintiff purchased the above apartment of this case on November 12, 1990, it cannot be deemed that the part of the above apartment purchase price did not clearly present the source other than the above wage and salary income was donated to another person, and there was no evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff received part of the above apartment fund from the above non-party at the time of purchasing the above apartment, the part of the above disposition of this case was unlawful.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all acceptable (However, it seems that Gap evidence No. 15-1 through No. 7 cited by the court below is erroneous in Gap evidence No. 8-1 through No. 6, but it is sufficient to recognize the above earned income on the record, and this does not affect the conclusion of the judgment). There are no errors in violation of the rules of evidence, such as theories, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of the applicable provisions of taxation, such as taxation, and all of the Supreme Court decisions in which the lawsuit is filed are different from the case, and thus the above judgment of the court below is not necessarily contrary to the above precedents.

All arguments are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)