Article 34-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act as a "relative's relative" and the requirements for and burden of proof to be in a special relationship.

In order to have a special relationship under Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act with a transferor's trend, alumni relationship, the same relationship as at the time of the occurrence of the cause of taxation in accordance with the legal principles of taxation, such as substantial taxation or fair taxation, and the facts related to the transferor must be objectively proved, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the tax authority.

Article 34-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act

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

Kim Jong-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8578 delivered on December 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the biological relationship of a transferor" shall be one of the related parties under Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the biological relationship of a transferor" shall be objectively clear and clear due to the transferor's trend, alumni relationship, the same workplace relationship, and so on. In order to have a special relationship, it must have the same relationship as at the time of the occurrence of taxation in accordance with the legal principles of taxation principles, such as substantial taxation or fair taxation, and must objectively prove the facts related to the transferor, and the burden of proof shall be objectively proved and clearly proved to the defendant who is the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Nu7132, Mar. 28, 198; 87Nu698, Jan. 19, 198).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is a person with a special relationship with the above non-party is unlawful since the non-party rivers and the non-party Jung Young-gu, the same as the plaintiff's representative director, only did not have a workplace like the plaintiff, and there was no evidence to prove that the facts related to the plaintiff were objectively clear. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts or incomplete deliberation.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)