Article 34-4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4275 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 41-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990), the requirements for and burden of proof to the person who has a special relation with the person who has renounced the preemptive right in respect of the deemed donation under Article

Article 34-4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4275 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 41-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990) are deemed to have been donated to the shareholders who have waived their preemptive rights pursuant to Article 34-4 of the same Act, and the persons who have renounced their preemptive rights and the persons who have a special relationship with the shareholders in the special relationship with the shareholders in the special relationship with the shareholders in the special relationship with the shareholders in the special relationship with the shareholders in the special relationship with the shareholders in the same Act, Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 11 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act are not sufficient merely with the trends, creative relationship, and workplace relationship.

Article 34-4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4275 of Dec. 31, 1990) Article 41(2)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 199) Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11667 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989,1592) 88Nu2861 delivered on March 14, 1990 (Gong1990,904) 90Nu837 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong190,1084)

Maximum Yong-Nam

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2323 delivered on September 19, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 34-4 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases where a person who has waived his/her preemptive right and a person who has a special relationship with a stockholder who has renounced his/her preemptive right in excess of his/her share ratio is deemed to have been donated an amount equivalent to the benefits received by being allocated new stocks, the mere fact that the person who has renounced his/her preemptive right is in a special relationship with the former, such as Article 34-4 of the same Act, Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act is insufficient to be a relative with the former, and the fact-friendly relationship should be open to the latter, and the burden of proof as to such relationship has been established with the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu890, Nov. 11, 1986; 86Nu318689, Nov. 19, 1987

From the same view of the court below, the court below held that the friendly facts cannot be objectively evident solely on the basis of the fact that 90 employees of 328 employee members who renounced the preemptive right to new stocks of the non-party Seoul Securities Company and the auditor of the above company are in the relationship with the executive officers of the same workplace, and that there is no evidence to prove any other friendly facts objectively and objectively. The judgment of the court below is just in light of relevant evidence and records, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no

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 Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)