Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the time when the special relationship exists and the degree of its certification.

Article 34 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, "the relative of the transferor" must be in the same relationship as at the time when the cause of taxation occurs under the legal principles of the taxation principle, such as substantial taxation or fair taxation, and the facts related to the transferor must be objectively proved by the tax authority, and the burden of proof

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

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu318 Decided January 20, 1987 86Nu795 Decided March 24, 1987

Plaintiff Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu753 delivered on June 12, 1987

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff purchased 30,00 shares of the non-party 1 from non-party 1 to non-party 2 from non-party 2, 24,889 shares, and 20,000 shares per share from non-party 3 from non-party 3, and the plaintiff is the director and the representative director of the non-party company from September 30, 1982 to the transfer date of the shares of this case, and the non-party 3 is the non-party 2 as the director and the representative director of the non-party company from October 8, 1982 to October 4, 1984, and the non-party 1 was the director and the representative director of the non-party company from September 23, 1983 to October 4, 1984 to the non-party 2, 193 to the above non-party 1,294.

However, Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the relative of the transferor" shall be one of the persons with a special relationship under Article 34 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the relative of the transferor" shall be objectively clear from the transferor's trend, alumni relationship, the same workplace relationship, etc., and if such a person has a special relationship, it shall be in 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 fact related to the transferor shall be objectively proved clearly, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu795, Mar. 24, 1987; 86Nu318, Jan. 20, 1987,

When the above non-party transfers shares to the plaintiff, it shall be deemed that there is no special relationship with the plaintiff and the non-party in the absence of the same workplace as the plaintiff, since the representative director or the non-party had already resigned from the office of director or the non-party at the time when the cause of taxation occurred. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff and the non-party had a same workplace relationship with the plaintiff at the time when the cause of taxation occurred, it cannot be objectively determined that the fact of the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party is objectively evident, and at least there is no special circumstance to provide the transferor with the benefit from the transfer free of charge to the transferee. In this case without such proof, the court below recognized the plaintiff and the non-party as a person in a special relationship with the plaintiff should be justified, and there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the "child relationship" in

Therefore, without further determination as to the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)