A. The meaning of “value at the time of imposing gift tax” under Article 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 1988), which is a provision applicable mutatis mutandis at the time of assessing the value of donated property (=value at the time when the tax authority can impose gift tax knowing that there is donated property)

(b) The case holding that even though the grounds for registration are not donations, it should be viewed that the gift tax on the transfer of real estate between lineal ascendants and descendants was known at the time of receiving taxation data from the registry office.

A. Article 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 34-5 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) means not the value at the time when gift tax is levied, but the value at the time when gift tax is levied, knowing that there is donated property, within the exclusion period of the imposition of gift tax, by arbitrarily selecting the gift tax according to the convenience of the imposition of gift tax, rather than the value at the time when the tax office can impose gift tax by knowing that there is donated property. In this context, the term “date when the tax office becomes aware that there is donated property” refers to the date on which the tax office receives taxation data, which provides for the collection of taxation data and procedures, and Article 234-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990).

B. The case holding that since the registration office, which completed the registration of ownership transfer for real estate, sent to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate along with a copy of the contract and a certified copy of the resident registration form and a certified copy of the land cadastre within 10 days from the date of completion of the registration pursuant to Article 11-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 234-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the tax office should be deemed to have known that the transfer of real estate between lineal ascendants and descendants was a donated property subject to gift tax pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, even if the grounds for

Article 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198); Article 34-5 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 15, 18(1), and 19 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4348 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992,148) 90Nu4280 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992,344) 91Nu7866 delivered on February 11, 1992

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11549 delivered on June 13, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the non-party (the deceased on July 29, 1985) who is the plaintiff's assistance in the real estate was entitled to sell or purchase the real estate of this case or completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate. The defendant is deemed to have donated the real estate of this case to the plaintiff on April 1, 1985 because the registration under the name of the plaintiff was transferred between lineal ascendants and descendants under Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. The court below found that the above non-party was not entitled to the gift of this case on November 26, 1987 by assessing the value of the property of this case according to the multiple method as of November 16, 1987, and that the defendant was not entitled to the gift tax of this case on November 26, 1987 on the premise that the above donated property was included in the property owned by the non-party at the time of the death of this case.

Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) which applies mutatis mutandis to the gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that the value at the time of imposing the gift tax shall not mean the value at the time when the gift tax is imposed arbitrarily selected within the exclusion period of imposing the gift tax, but it shall be interpreted that it means the value at the time when the tax authority can impose the gift tax with the knowledge that the gift property is donated. (See Article 90Nu6187 of Nov. 9, 1990; Article 90Nu2956 of Nov. 27, 199; Article 91Nu4348 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the tax authority should not impose the gift tax within the scope of imposing the gift tax, and Article 9(2) of the former Act, which provides that the tax authority should not impose the gift tax within 130 years prior to the tax office received.

Therefore, a registry office which has completed the registration of transfer of the real estate of this case in the plaintiff's future pursuant to Article 11-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 234-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, sent to the defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate of this case with a copy of the contract and a copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the land and a copy of the land cadastre, etc. within 10 days from the date of completion of the registration. Thus, the defendant should be deemed to have known that the transfer of the real estate of this case between lineal ascendants and descendants is a donated property subject to gift tax pursuant to Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, even if the reason for registration is not a donation, even if the reason for registration is not a donation, at the time of receiving the above taxation data, it is clear that the gift tax of this case is within the gift tax return period, and thus, the amount of donation should be evaluated as of October 2, 1985. Therefore,

Therefore, without determining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)