A. The meaning of "value at the time of imposing gift tax" under Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) which applies mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act

B. Whether the value appraised by a reliable appraisal institution can be seen as “market price” under Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (affirmative)

(c) In the case of an onerous donation in which a donee takes over a donor’s obligation as a result of which the donee is not a gift between his/her spouse or lineal ascendants or descendants, whether the donee’s obligation should be always deducted from the value of the donated property

A. Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) which applies mutatis mutandis to the gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act shall be interpreted as "value at the time of imposition of gift tax" as "value at the time of imposition of gift tax" when the tax authority knew that there was donated property and could have been imposing gift tax.

B. In principle, “market price” under Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act refers to an objective exchange price formed through normal transactions, but since the concept includes an appraised value in an objective and reasonable manner, the appraised value by a reliable appraisal institution may also be deemed as the market price.

C. According to Article 29-4(1) and the main text of Article 29-4(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in cases of onerous donation in which a donee takes over a donor’s obligation, insofar as it is not a donation between his/her spouse or lineal ascendants or descendants, it shall not be determined whether the assumption of obligation falls under the proviso of the same paragraph, but shall be deducted from the value of the donated property.

A. Articles 34-5 and 9(2)2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 1988)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6187 decided Nov. 9, 1990 (Gong1991,113) 90Nu3799 decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991,259) 90Nu10278 decided May 10, 1991 (Dong Branch) 91Nu1370 decided May 14, 1991 (Dong Branch) 87Nu500 decided Oct. 26, 1987 (Gong1987,1812) 88Nu1698 decided Jun. 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1187) 90Nu471910 decided Sept. 28, 1990 (Gong2194)

Plaintiff

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu12454 delivered on October 30, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act before the amendment by Act No. 4022 of December 26, 198 shall be interpreted to mean the value at the time when the tax authority was aware of the existence of the donated property and could have levied the gift tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6187, Nov. 9, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3799, Nov. 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3799, Nov. 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3799, Nov. 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu322, Nov. 27, 1984; 200Nu689689, Nov. 27, 2986; 2008Nu689689, Nov. 19, 198607

In the same purport, the court below assessed the value of donated property on the basis of the market value of donated property at the time when the defendant was able to levy gift tax with the knowledge of the pertinent donated property, and assessed the value of donated property on December 20, 198, by calculating the value of donated property according to the appraised value according to the rate method in a specific region at the time of imposing gift tax. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below did not contain an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the valuation of donated property without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

Article 29-4 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "Gift tax shall be the total amount of donated property at the time of receiving the gift" in paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) provides that "in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), onerous donation between spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants shall not be deducted except as otherwise provided for in the proviso." Thus, in case of onerous donation in which a donee takes over a donor's obligation, unless it is a donation between his spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants, it shall not be determined whether the acceptance of obligation falls under the proviso of Article 29-4 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the amount of obligation of the donor taken over by the donee shall be deducted from the value of donated property, and in case where the donee takes over the donor's obligation, it shall not be deemed that the above conclusion has changed.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the amount of debts of the donor acquired by the plaintiff in the receipt of the real estate in this case from his Silterland should be deducted from the value of the donated property, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)