Whether a donor who received only a notice of payment regarding a disposition imposing gift tax on a donee has an interest in seeking the revocation of the said disposition (negative)

In the absence of a notice of tax payment pursuant to Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the donor cannot be jointly and severally liable for gift tax because there is no legitimate taxation on the donor. Therefore, the donor has a substantial and indirect interest in the disposition of gift tax on the donee, and the donor does not have a direct interest in the law seeking the revocation of the said disposition.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 29-2(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 38, 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 9 and 25 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3741 Decided May 23, 1989 88Nu2120 Decided June 14, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11 Decided May 10, 1985

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu13054 delivered on June 22, 1989

The plaintiff 1's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 2 is reversed.

Plaintiff 2’s lawsuit is dismissed.

Expenses incurred by the appeal by the plaintiff 1 shall be borne by the same plaintiff, the same plaintiff 2, and the defendant respectively.

We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief.

Plaintiff 2’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 29-2(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 38, Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, etc., a donor’s joint and several liability for payment of gift tax under Article 29-2(2) of the same Act is established abstractly when a donee fails to pay gift tax, etc., but the head of a tax office has determined specifically by notifying the donor of the reason for payment of gift tax pursuant to Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act by stating the taxable year, tax item, tax base, due date for payment and place for payment of gift tax pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, if the donor did not pay gift tax pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the donor cannot be held liable for payment of gift tax because there is no legitimate taxation as to the donor, and thus, the donor’s joint and several liability for payment of gift tax can not be determined by the Plaintiff 2, a joint and several liability for payment of gift tax (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu186, Sept. 18, 198, 1988, 19886.

Therefore, if the defendant seized the real estate owned by the plaintiff, it shall be deemed sufficient to dispute the invalidity and revocation of the attachment disposition in question if it is actually and indirectly related to the imposition disposition of the gift tax in this case against the plaintiff 1 (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11, May 10, 198; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu506, August 23, 1983).

The court below held that the plaintiff, a joint and several tax obligor, has a legal interest in the disposition imposing gift tax of this case by the above plaintiff 1, as a person with a legal interest in the disposition imposing gift tax of this case.

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 2 is reversed, and it is sufficient for the party members to decide on the case. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)