The burden of proving that there was no other reason to select a supplementary evaluation method provided for in Articles 42 and 5(2) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 1988) as it is difficult to compute the market price of donated property (=the tax office)

Under Articles 42 and 5(2) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 198), the assessment of donated property by the method provided for in Articles 42 and 5(2) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 198) is an complementary method that can only be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation or when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation and there

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 34-5 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 5 and 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567, Dec. 31, 198); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act)

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu48 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,618) 88Nu8715 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989,1093) 90Nu6309 Delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong191,656)

Landscaping Do Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Changwon Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu1292 delivered on June 8, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff filed an appeal only against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court below, which did not contain any grounds for appeal as to the part against which the plaintiff lost, and there was no statement of grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and only the part of the plaintiff's favor which the plaintiff did not appeal was filed. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. The plaintiff's appeal against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff cannot be accepted even if it is dissatisfied with the grounds for appeal. Thus, the plaintiff's

(2) We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Under Articles 42 and 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the assessment of donated property by the method provided for in Articles 42 and 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act shall be conducted only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation or when it is difficult to calculate the market price, and the burden of proving that there was no supplementary method of assessment

According to the records, the defendant asserted that the value of the above real estate was assessed according to the standard market price under the Local Tax Act because the market price at the time of the imposition of gift tax on the real estate listed in the table No. 4 of the judgment below (as of December 8, 1986) was not known, and there was no proof as to the fact that the above method was not possible because of the lack of market price assessment. Thus, the court below was just in holding that the disposition of this case based on the value assessed by the defendant according to the standard market price of taxation was unlawful, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal of the property, or in the misapprehension of the burden of proof, or in the violation of the rules of evidence, or in the above case, there is no need to determine the propriety of taxation by calculating the market price of the property by its own authority. Therefore, the court below's decision that did not proceed to the determination of

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)