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

1. The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to the examination.

According to the records, on October 10, 2016, after the filing of the instant appeal, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant issued a decision of correction to revoke ex officio the part exceeding KRW 35,213,137 of the instant disposition. As such, the part of the instant lawsuit, which was revoked as above (hereinafter “the part of the Defendant’s ex officio revocation”), was seeking revocation of a disposition that had not been extinguished, and thus, became unlawful.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the remainder other than the defendant's ex officio revocation.

Article 31(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “Gift”) provides that donated property subject to gift tax shall include all articles having economic value that can be converted into money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

In addition, Article 60(1) declares the principle of market value by requiring the value of the property on which a gift tax is levied to be in accordance with the market price as of the date of donation. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the market price is “the value generally recognized as being constituted if a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons,” and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that “where it is difficult to calculate the market price in applying paragraph (1), the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65, considering the type

Therefore, property belonging to the donee and having property value which can be converted into money is included in the donated property, and the value calculation shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation, but any donated property is traded freely between many and unspecified persons.