The legality of a disposition imposing gift tax, which is reported as the market price of real estate between lineal ascendants and descendants;

Article 34 of the Inheritance Tax Act does not purport to deny the sale between lineal ascendants and descendants or the sales price thereof, and thus, it is legitimate to recognize the sales price under the sales contract made between the lineal ascendants and descendants as the market price at the time of transfer and impose gift tax, barring special circumstances, such as that the sales price under the sales contract is significantly different from the market price.

Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 34 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Dong Busan District Tax Office

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As a principal claim, the Plaintiff:

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 40,035,00 and KRW 8,007,00 for defense tax in 1982 against the Plaintiff on May 6, 1982 shall be revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

As a preliminary claim,

Among the above taxation imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff, the amount exceeding KRW 3,848,851, and KRW 769,770, respectively, shall be revoked.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3-1, 5, 10, 10-1, 10, 10-1, 2, 4, and 5 of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3-1, and 10-1, 5 of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 4, and 5 of the witness Kim Young-young testimony without dispute over each establishment, the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as this real estate) which was originally owned by non-party No. 1, the father of the plaintiff, was completed on December 21, 1978 on the plaintiff on December 8, 197, 00, 000 won, 000 won, 30-10, 400, 50-10, 000 won, 50-1, 205, 200-1, 3005, 2005.

First of all, the plaintiff's transfer registration was made on April 3, 1980 by the non-party 1 with the intention to prevent the division of the property due to the inheritance after the death of the non-party 1, and only to the non-party 2, South Korea, after the death of the non-party 1, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the real estate to the non-party 2 in the future, and accordingly, the plaintiff has completed the registration of transfer from the non-party 1 to the plaintiff (the non-party 3, who becomes the mother of the plaintiff on the same day to restrict the disposal of the above real estate, until the registration of transfer was completed on the non-party 1 with the maximum debt amount of 9,50,000 won as the right to collateral security, and the plaintiff's transfer registration was made on the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 in accordance with the above agreement, and thus, the plaintiff's transfer registration cannot be imposed on the non-party 1 in the future on the non-party 1's ownership.

In other words, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive statement that the above sales contract was submitted to the Defendant on February 1981 by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above sales contract was made with respect to the above real estate and the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership to Nonparty 2, as seen earlier, would have been significantly different from the Plaintiff’s sales contract at the time of the transfer of ownership, and that it would be difficult to view that there was a significant difference between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 as to the sale price under the above provision of the Local Tax Act by using the seal of Nonparty 1, which was kept by Nonparty 3, to reduce the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax, and that there was no clear difference between the Plaintiff’s sale price and Nonparty 1’s sale price under the above provision of the Local Tax Act, and that there was no clear difference between the Plaintiff’s sale price and Nonparty 1’s sale price at the time of the transfer of ownership. Accordingly, the above provision of the Local Tax Act that was calculated based on the above provision of the sales contract at the time of the transfer of ownership cannot be seen.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of gift tax of this case is legitimate and there is no reason to believe that the above disposition is unlawful, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the whole tax disposition and the preliminary claim for revocation of part of the above tax disposition are without merit. Therefore, all of them are dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost.

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)