Whether the presumption of donation pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act is based on the fact that the real estate owned by the husband was transferred to a third party who had been engaged in the same kind of business as the husband and was transferred to the wife again (negative)

In a case where the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the husband of the Plaintiff, was transferred from Party A to Party B, and was transferred to the Plaintiff only about eight months again, it is recognized only that Party B was in a usual leather processing technology advisory relationship with Party A, and there was a monetary transaction and goods transaction between Party B and Party B, it cannot be deemed that Party B constitutes an objectively obvious person who is in a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, such as the trend of relationship between Party A and Party A, the alumni relationship, and the same workplace relationship. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the donation cannot be deemed as a donation pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Sheet, the margin of line;

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 89 Gu909 delivered on June 8, 1990

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 of the court below, the non-party Chuncheon Hong, which was transferred the real estate of this case from the plaintiff's husband's her husband to the plaintiff about 8 months only, is the business operator dealing with the goods of the same kind as the above gambling and the leather processing technology advisory relationship, and there is only money transaction and goods transaction among them. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the above Chuncheon Hong constitutes a person objectively obvious person who is one of the related parties as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act such as the above gambling and the relation of friendship, the alumni relation, and the same workplace relationship. Thus, since the real estate of this case was transferred from the above gambling and transferred from the above so far to the plaintiff through the above so far, it cannot be deemed as a donation under Article 34 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

In the same purport, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which deemed donation and imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff pursuant to the above provision, was unlawful, is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above-mentioned specially related persons, and as long as the above-mentioned disposition does not meet the requirements for imposition, it is not necessary to consider the calculation of the tax base of gift tax. Therefore, the lower court’s determination on the method of assessing the value of donated property

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won