(a) Where an omission or error is found after the tax base and amount of tax are determined, whether the tax authority’s disposition of correction pursuant to Article 25(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which stipulates that the tax base and amount of tax should be immediately corrected, constitutes double taxation or violates the principle of equity or good faith (negative);

B. Whether the presumption of paternity, the nominal owner, can be reversed solely on the ground that there was a contribution by the wife in the process of acquiring real estate, and whether the presumption of paternity can be recognized as co-ownership by the married couple

C. Whether Articles 34-5 and 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198); Articles 42(1) and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1293, May 1, 1990) violate the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

A. Article 25(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that when the government finds any omission or error in the tax base and amount of tax after determining the tax base and amount of tax, it shall immediately correct the tax base and amount of tax. Article 6(1)2 of the former Defense Tax Act (repealed by Act No. 4280, Dec. 31, 1990) provides that the defense tax imposed on the amount of the gift tax shall be imposed and collected in the same manner as the gift tax is imposed and collected. Each of the above provisions provides that the principle of fair taxation or the nature of the State’s taxation authority is natural in light of the principle of fair taxation or the nature of the State’s taxation, and the disposition to correct the tax authority pursuant to the above provision is irrelevant to the payment of the existing amount of tax, the omission of the tax amount, etc., or the causes of

B. Article 830 of the Civil Act provides that the property acquired by one of the married couple in his/her own name and the property acquired in his/her own name in the marriage shall be the property of his/her own property prior to marriage. Therefore, the real property under the name of the father shall be presumed to be owned by the father regardless of whether the time of acquisition is before or after marriage with the wife. Even if the wife has contributed partially to the process of acquiring the above real property, such presumption alone shall be reversed

C. Articles 34-5 and 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198), Articles 42(1) and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1293 of May 1, 1990), and 42(1) and 5 of the same Act provide that the value of donated property shall be calculated based on the current status as at the time of donation, and where it is difficult to calculate the market price at that time, it shall be calculated based on the appraised value at the time of donation, and where it is difficult to calculate the market price at that time, it shall be calculated based on the appraised value at the time of donation in the specific area determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in the case of land, and in other areas, the standard and scope of taxation, tax base, etc. are stipulated in Acts and subordinate statutes, but only delegated the selection of a specific area that requires any specialized judgment

A. Article 25(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Article 830 of the Civil Act provides that Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 42(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993 of May 1, 1990)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu1114 delivered on August 28, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of subsequent supplement since they were subsequent to the submission period).

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below that each of the real estate in this case was donated from the non-party to the plaintiff in the future, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 34-5 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 25(3) of the same Act provide that when the government finds any omission or error in the tax base and tax amount after determining the tax base and tax amount, it shall correct the tax base and tax amount immediately. Article 6(1)2 of the Defense Tax Act provides that the defense tax imposed on the amount of gift tax shall be imposed and collected in the same manner as the gift tax is levied and collected, and each of the above provisions provides that the principle of fair taxation or the nature of the State's right to impose taxes is natural in light of the principle of fair taxation or the nature of the State's right to impose taxes, and thus a disposition to correct the tax authority under the above provision is irrelevant to the payment of the existing tax amount, the tax amount shall not be deemed double taxation, or it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a violation of the principle of equity

On the third ground for appeal

Article 67-7 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that if a person who currently owns a certain farmland, grassland, forest land, etc. as of December 31, 1986 donates his/her own farmland, etc. to a self-employed farmer, who is a lineal ascendant, descendant, or sibling by December 31, 1991, he/she shall be exempted from gift tax on the value of the farmland, etc., and the spouse is excluded from those subject to exemption, so his/her spouse may not be included in the above exemption, in light of the basic principles of interpretation of tax law prohibited from analogical interpretation or expanded interpretation.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and cannot be accepted.

Concerning No. 4

Article 830 of the Civil Act provides that one side of the couple's proprietary property prior to marriage and the property acquired in his name during marriage shall be its unique property. Thus, each of the real property in the name of the above Nonparty shall be presumed to be owned by the above Nonparty regardless of whether the time of acquisition is before or after marriage with the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff has contributed partially to the process of acquiring each real property, such presumption alone shall be reversed and each of the real property in this case shall not be deemed to be owned by the above Nonparty and the Plaintiff.

In addition, the court below's rejection of witness's testimony to the purport that each real estate of this case corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion that it is substantially co-ownership of the above non-party and the plaintiff.

All of the judgment below's recognition and decision are just and it is not acceptable to accept all the arguments on the dissenting opinion.

Concerning the fifth point

Articles 34-5 and 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1293, May 1, 1990) and Articles 42(1) and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1293, May 1, 1990) provide that the value of donated property shall be appraised at the time of gift tax imposition if it is not reported on gift but at the time of donation, and in cases of land where it is difficult to calculate the market price at that time, it shall be appraised at the time of gift tax imposition, and in cases of land other than that, it shall be calculated at the standard market price under the Local Tax Act in a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. Each of the above provisions provide for the standard and scope of taxation, tax base, etc., and they shall be deemed to be a delegation to the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)