The case holding that the gift tax shall not be imposed even if a registration by consultation or division different from the above registration details has been made after ten years have elapsed since the registration of inheritance was left alone as a result of the inheritance registration by subrogation of another person after the commencement of inheritance.

The details of the above registration are different from those of the above registration after the lapse of 10 years since the registration of inheritance was neglected according to the statutory shares of inheritance by subrogation of another person after the commencement of the inheritance.

The case holding that even if a registration was made, it is not subject to gift tax.

Articles 1013, 1015, Article 29-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

The Director of the Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu36375 delivered on July 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if one of the co-inheritors acquired property exceeding his own statutory shares in inheritance by mutual agreement as to inherited property, it shall be deemed as having been succeeded from the inheritee at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and it shall not be deemed as having been donated from other co-inheritors. On August 30, 1980, the court below acknowledged the right of subrogation of ownership transfer registration for the purpose of preserving the claim against the non-party 2, one of the co-inheritors, among the co-inheritors who did not make the registration of inheritance of this case on April 28, 1982, after the death of the non-party 1, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, as the Plaintiff’s husband, and the non-party co-inheritors did not make the registration of inheritance of this case on April 28, 1982, the court below determined that the other co-inheritors did not have completed the provisional registration of inheritance by agreement on July 6, 1983, which was made on the premise that the other co-inheritors did not have completed the registration of inheritance.

In comparison with the records, the above recognition of the court below is acceptable, and even if the plaintiff made provisional registration as the plaintiff made a promise to sell and sell the inheritance shares of other co-inheritors except the plaintiff, such as the theory of lawsuit, if it is due to the agreement on the division of inherited property as recognized by the court below, the above other co-inheritors cannot be deemed to exercise their rights in accordance with their respective inheritance shares. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just and contrary, and there is no reason to issue an attack against the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)