[1] In a case where there was error or error in part of the fact that a tax disposition was found, but it is within the factual scope that is recognized as identical to the actual facts, whether the disposition is consistent (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the identity of the disposition is not maintained since the basic fact of taxation changed, in case where more than two actual donors have been discovered after the disposition of taxation by reporting the donor as one person

[1] Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / [2] Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272 delivered on February 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 812)

Plaintiff Foundation

Sejong director of the tax office (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu2799 delivered on November 24, 2005

Each appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

According to the records, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal filed by the plaintiff and did not submit a statement of grounds

2. As to the defendant's appeal

A. Ground of appeal No.1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the fact that the non-party 1 contributed the above shares to the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on the following day after he received comprehensive delegation from the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on the acquisition, management, etc. of his property, and managed the property on December 1, 1989. The non-party 4 donated 150,000 shares from the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on December 1, 1989. However, the non-party 5 and the non-party 3 held the title trust and thereafter made the contribution to the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 2 and 3

B. Ground of appeal No. 2

Even if there are errors or errors in part of the facts acknowledged at the time of the initial disposition by the tax authority, if the facts found thereafter are not different from the original facts that are identical to the original facts of taxation, the identity of the disposition is maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997). However, in the case of a donation of property from several persons, it is established by each donor by applying the tax rate for each donor. Therefore, in calculating each amount of gift tax by applying the tax rate for each donor. As such, if there is a difference in the number of donors, such as where the donor deemed the donor as one person, and the donor was found to have imposed tax as two or more persons, the identity of the original disposition cannot be maintained by changing the basic facts of taxation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the imposition of gift tax by the defendant on the non-party 5 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 who reported the non-party 1 as donor and the imposition of gift tax by the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 as donor are different from the basic facts for taxation, and thus the identity of taxation cannot be maintained. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is 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 who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)