A. In a case where a person, who had been engaged in occupation and financial capacity at the time of acquiring property and had a substantial income, fails to clearly present the source out of the funds for acquiring property, whether such part can be deemed as having been donated

(b) Where it is presumed that funds for acquiring the property of a person who has no occupation or financial history have been donated, and the degree of proof to reverse this presumption;

A. As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority. Thus, if the tax authority had a considerable refluence with the occupation expected to import at the time of acquisition of the property and had a considerable amount of income therefrom, barring special circumstances, the portion of the funds for acquisition of the property, which was not clearly presented, cannot be recognized as having been donated to another person, barring special circumstances.

B. In a case where a person, who has no occupation or history, does not prove the source of funds for acquiring the pertinent property and has the ability to give a donation to his lineal ascendant, the funds for acquiring the said property shall be presumed to have been donated from the arbitrative lineal ascendant. It is also necessary to prove the existence of the said funds and the fact that the funds have been used as the funds for acquiring the pertinent property, as well as the fact that the funds have been used as the funds for acquiring the said property, in addition to the funds presumed to have been donated to reverse such presumption.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1018 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1308) 91Nu2106 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2180) 94Nu673 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2555) 91Nu6115 delivered on March 27, 1992 (Gong192, 1450)

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2, Attorney Hayang-yang, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Dong Busan District Office

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu1428 delivered on June 22, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant Dongsan Tax Office are also examined.

(1) As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority. Thus, if the tax authority had a considerable refluence with the occupation expected to import at the time of acquisition of the property and had a considerable amount of income therefrom, barring special circumstances, the portion of the funds for acquisition of the property, which was not clearly presented, cannot be recognized as having been donated to another person, unless there are special circumstances.

However, in a case where a person who has no occupation or history, has no sufficient evidence to prove the source of the fund for acquiring the property in question and has the ability to give a donation to his lineal ascendant, it shall be presumed that the fund for acquiring the property has been donated from the arbitrative lineal ascendant. In order to reverse such presumption, it is necessary to prove that the fund was used as the fund for acquiring the property in question by clarifying the source of the fund separate from the fund presumed to have been donated, and that it was used as the fund for acquiring the property in question (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu615 delivered on March 27, 192).

(2) The court below determined that the disposition of this case against the above plaintiff by the head of Dongsan District Tax Office was unlawful since the plaintiff 1 had a certain occupation and considerable financial history and business experience at the time of the purchase of this case, since some of the above plaintiff 1's share of the purchase price was not clearly identified, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff 1 was donated money from the non-party who is his father, and there was no other evidence as to the above donation. On the other hand, the plaintiff 2 did not have a certain occupation at the time of the purchase of this case and there was a considerable financial or business experience in paying the above plaintiff's share of the purchase price. Thus, the court below determined that the above plaintiff 1's share of the purchase price was not a donation from the non-party who is the father of Seosan District Tax Office, and there was no other evidence as to the above plaintiff 2's share of the purchase price. The court below's determination of the court below's error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above plaintiff 2's share of the purchase price was not legitimate.

(3) Therefore, all appeals by plaintiffs 2 and the defendant Dongsan Tax Office are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)