The case holding that it does not constitute a justifiable ground for not being able to impose additional gift tax and additional tax for arrears;

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer's intent and negligence are not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the individual tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, but where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to prove his/her duty, such as where there are circumstances where the taxpayer is reasonably able to present his/her duty or where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty, and where it is evident that the taxpayer's failure to report and pay duty is contrary to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes even if he/she believed the erroneous explanation of a tax official and fails to fulfill his/her duty to report and pay duty, the case holding that there is no justifiable ground

Article 26 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) (see Article 78 of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) and Article 34-7

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu660 Decided November 26, 1985 (Gong1986, 163) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6415 Decided February 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1191) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu15939 Decided November 23, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 220)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 95Gu7254 delivered on September 13, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Articles 34-7, 20(1) and 20-2(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same), where a donee acquires property through a third party donation, a person who acquires property through a third party donation shall pay and pay gift tax within six months from the date of donation. Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the same Act provides that the value of the property donated by an ancestor to an heir within five years before the commencement of inheritance shall be added to the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and the actual factual basis is not converted to the inheritance that the donated property is inherited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2480, Aug. 26, 1994). Accordingly, where inheritance commences after a donee becomes liable to pay gift tax after acquiring the property, it shall not be deemed that the heir, who is the donee, filed a return on and payment of the gift tax without reporting the property for which a donee performed his obligation to pay the gift tax.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, as prescribed by individual tax laws, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer's intention and negligence are not considered. On the other hand, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of such obligations, and where there are justifiable grounds that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to have been unaware of such obligations or to expect the party to fulfill such obligations, etc., it cannot be imposed. Even if the taxpayer has believed the erroneous explanation of the tax official and failed to perform his duty to pay taxes, if it is evident that the taxpayer violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such reasons do not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu660, Nov. 26, 1985; 93Nu1539, Nov. 23, 1993; 2009Nu15939, Nov. 23, 1993).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, and the precedents of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate to invoke the case in this case, unlike the case. There is no reason for the discussion.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The theory of the lawsuit is that the imposition of the gift tax of this case is unlawful, since the excess amount of the inheritance tax of this case, which the plaintiffs filed by the defendant, is appropriated as the gift tax of this case without adding the national tax refund from the date of return to the date of appropriation. However, this is not only a new fact that is not alleged in the original judgment, but also a new fact that is not related to the collection and appropriation of the tax amount to be imposed, which is not related to the illegality of the disposition of imposition (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18481 delivered on June 11, 1993). We cannot accept the argument

4. 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)