A. Whether Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) concerning the method of valuation of donated property omitted from the return constitutes invalid provisions prescribed in this Act under the Framework Act on National Taxes (negative)

(b) If the tax authority knows that donated property exists according to the delivery of taxation data by the registry office within the period of filing a return of taxable amount of gift taxes, it shall evaluate the value of the donated property at the time of receiving the taxation data, and

A. Article 21(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the obligation to pay gift tax shall be established at the time of acquisition of property by gift. Article 21(1)3 of the same Act provides for the abstract time of establishment of the obligation to pay gift tax. In addition, specific tax liability does not stipulate the method of assessment of donated property. Meanwhile, Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 1988) which applies mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide for the method and time of assessment of donated property which is the tax base of gift tax. Thus, both are different from each other. Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that Article 9(2) of the same Act provides for faithfully reporting the taxable value of donated property and provides for reasonable assessment of the omitted property. Thus, Article 9(2) of the same Act does not provide for invalidation of Article 21(1)3 of the Framework Act.

B. In accordance with Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the term “value at the time of levy of gift tax” shall be interpreted to mean the value at the time when the tax authority is able to levy gift tax with the knowledge of the existence of donated property. As such, even if the tax authority knew that donated property exists at around 10 days after the date of completion of the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of donation according to the delivery of the taxation data by the registry office under Article 11-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the gift tax shall not be levied, as long as the gift tax cannot be imposed within the period of the return of gift tax amount under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the gift tax under Article 34-5

Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 2, 1988). Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 21(1)3b of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 11-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu237 delivered on September 29, 1986 (Gong1986,1411) 87Nu441 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987,1732) b. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu23 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983,1598)

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2026 delivered on June 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

Article 21(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the obligation to pay gift tax shall be established when property is acquired through donation, provides for the abstract time of establishment of the obligation to pay gift tax. In addition, the specific tax liability is determined by the relevant tax law (Article 22 of the same Act). Meanwhile, Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988, which applies mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act) of the same Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the method and time of assessment of donated property which serves as the base for gift tax. Since Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides for the abstract time of establishment of the obligation to pay gift tax, the two are different from each other. Thus, since Article 9(1)3 of the same Act provides for the purpose of reasonably assessing the value of donated property and omitted property from the report, it cannot be deemed that Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides for invalidation 1381.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below found on May 24, 198 that the plaintiff received the gift tax in this case from the non-party Park Jong-seok and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the gift on May 27, 198, but did not report the gift tax within the reporting period. The defendant was notified by the National Tax Service computer office of taxation data on October 26, 198, and on March 25, 1989, the appraised value of the above gift tax as of the above notification date was the gift tax in this case, which imposed the gift tax and defense tax accordingly on the plaintiff, and determined that Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the value of the gift tax which was not reported or omitted at the time of the gift tax imposition shall not be the value at the time of the gift tax imposition, and it is difficult to view that the registration office of the gift tax in this case should reasonably inform that the gift tax had no donated property at the time when it was reported or should have been notified.

Article 5 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act newly established by the Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 198 provides that "value at the time of imposition of inheritance tax" means the value appraised on the basis of the current status on the date on which the inheritance becomes aware that there is inherited property to be levied," and Paragraph 1 (3) of the General Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act amended on June 13, 198-2.9 (Determination on the date on which the inheritance becomes known that there is inherited property to be levied an inheritance tax, "the day on which the taxpayer becomes aware that there is inherited property to be levied an inheritance tax" shall be interpreted as "the day on which the gift tax base at the time of imposition of gift tax is received by the registry office under Article 5 (7) of the Decree, and the fixed period of imposition of gift tax under Article 201 of the Inheritance Tax Act shall be interpreted as "the day after the due date for filing the gift tax is referring to the day after the due date for imposition of gift tax under Article 2038-1 of the Inheritance Tax Act.

However, on October 26, 198, before six months have passed since May 27, 198, the period for reporting the taxable value under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act, which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the pertinent real estate by donation, it is erroneous for the court below to have determined that the instant tax disposition was legitimate, notwithstanding the Defendant's notification of taxation data from the National Tax Service office and assessment of the value of the pertinent donated property at the time of the tax assessment, although the Defendant received the notification of taxation data from the National Tax Service and assessed the value of the pertinent donated property at that time. However, it is obvious that there is no dispute between the parties as to the pertinent donated property at the time when the period for reporting the taxable value under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act as to the gift of the instant real estate had expired, and such error was not affected by the judgment.

In the end, it is not possible to accept the argument.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)