(a) Effect on the tax claims for which the termination of agreement has already occurred after the execution of the gift contract;

(b) Acquisition time of donated land under the Inheritance Tax Act;

C. Requirements and burden of proof for selecting evaluation method under Article 5 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12038 of Dec. 31, 1986)

A. Even if the parties to the donation contract cancel the agreement on the gift after the taxation claims of the State, by acquiring the property through the implementation of the donation contract, are subject to the gift tax, it may not affect any taxation claims of the State already accrued therefrom.

B. Where land is donated, the time of acquisition of such property under the Inheritance Tax Act is when the registration of ownership transfer has been completed unless there are special circumstances.

C. The burden of proving that the valuation of donated property according to the method under Article 5 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12038 of Dec. 31, 1986) is a supplementary method that can choose only when it is difficult to calculate the value according to the current status at the time of donation or the market price according to the value at the time of imposing the gift tax, and there was no need to select the supplementary method.

A. Articles 21(1)3 and 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2 subparag. 3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. Article 29-2(c) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12038, Dec. 31, 1986)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu607 delivered on November 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu783 delivered on November 12, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu670 delivered on March 12, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu48 delivered on March 14, 1989

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1539 delivered on June 15, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below is just in holding that even if the parties to the donation contract cancel the agreement on the gift contract after the party's taxation claim was created after the party to the donation contract was able to levy gift tax by acquiring the property through the implementation of the donation contract on the grounds that the original judgment on the instant case was reversed, it cannot affect the national taxation claim already occurred, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rescission of the agreement, such as theory

The precedent cited by the theory of the lawsuit is different from the case, and it is not appropriate to this case.

2. In the case of a donation of land, the time of acquisition of the property by donation under the Inheritance Tax Act shall be deemed to be the time when the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu783, Nov. 12, 1985). Thus, the court below is just in holding the time of acquisition of the real property of this case as of December 31, 1983, which is the day before its registration, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time of acquisition of donated property, such

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since no data was found to know the market price of the real estate of this case as of March 17, 1986, which was at the time of taxation, as well as December 31, 1983, which was the time of donation of the real estate of this case, the court below determined that the value of the real estate of this case was calculated by the rate method determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as of the time of taxation according to Article 5(2)1

However, the above determination by the court below is based on the theory that the court below committed an error of proving the value of donated property before the burden of proof was committed, as pointed out, since the appraisal of donated property by the method as provided in Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12038 of Dec. 31, 1986) was a supplementary method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price according to the current status at the time of donation or the market price at the time of imposition of gift tax, and the burden of proving that there was no supplementary method of appraisal as it is difficult to compute the time of donation is the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu670 of Mar. 12, 1985), since the above determination by the court below did not affect the above determination by the court below, since there was no precedent of transaction on the land near the location of the above real property at the time of imposition of gift tax of this case. Thus, it cannot be seen that the above supplementary method cannot be determined.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)