[1] In a case where there was error or error in the part of the facts acknowledged as taxation disposition, but it is within the scope of facts recognized as identical to the actual facts, whether the disposition is consistent (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that even if a person who was recognized as a donor by the tax authority was merely a fund manager of the donor, the original disposition of gift tax is lawful as it maintains the identity of the disposition

[3] In a case where the fact of donation is presumed, whether the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the donation is not a gift (affirmative)

[1] Even if there are errors or errors in part of the facts acknowledged at the time of the initial disposition by the tax authority, if it does not change the basic fact of taxation within the scope of the same fact as the original fact of taxation, the identity of the disposition is maintained.

[2] The case holding that the initial taxation disposition is lawful, even if the actual right holder of the above deposit was Eul, and the donor was merely a fund manager as his wife, and the donor was Eul as his actual right holder, after the disposition of gift tax was imposed on the grounds that Gap withdrawn his deposit in his own name and donated it to another person

[3] In a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax imposition, inasmuch as the deposit in the name of the person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority was withdrawn and the deposit was made as a fixed deposit in the taxpayer’s name or as it was revealed that it was used to purchase registered beneficiary certificates, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, it is necessary to prove it

[1] Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / [2] Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / [3] Article 26 of the

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14059 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 560) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong198, 365) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9145 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong190, 277) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6006 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1183)

Hasung-type and three others (Attorneys Kim Jong- Promotion et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Masan Tax Office et al.

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu7778 delivered on January 17, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

Even if there are errors or errors in part of the facts recognized at the time of the initial disposition by the tax authorities, if it does not change the basic fact of taxation within the scope of the same fact as the original fact of taxation, the identity of the disposition shall be maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14059 delivered on December 21, 1993).

In the same purport, the court below issued the disposition of this case which imposed a tax on the ground that the defendant withdrawn the deposit in its name and donated the deposit to the plaintiffs, but the actual right holder of the above deposit was the non-party subordinate to the non-party subordinate to the financial management, and that the original disposition of this case was lawful even though it was found that the donor was merely the financial management manager, and that the donor was a subordinate to the money management, and that the original disposition of this case was lawful. There is no reason to argue that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the requirements for imposing gift tax

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4

As acknowledged by the court below, as long as the lower court acknowledged, the lower court’s deposit of the lower court, which was managed by the return of rights, was withdrawn and deposited as a fixed deposit in the name of the Plaintiffs or used for the purchase of registered beneficiary certificates, it is presumed that the lower court’s deposit was donated to the Plaintiffs. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as the withdrawal of the said deposit and the fact that the deposit was made for any other purpose than the donation of deposits in the name of the Plaintiffs, the need to prove it is for the Plaintiffs (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811, Dec. 22, 198

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that recognized the donation of this case on the premise that there is no proof of special circumstances as above is just, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles, and the degree of burden of proof. There is no ground

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)