Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the time of existence of special relationship and burden of proof under Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 34 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "the person's relative" shall be the person's relative at the time of the occurrence of the cause of taxation and shall bear the burden of proving that the person has a relation with the transferor.

Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu611 Decided February 11, 1986, 86Nu795 Decided March 24, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu698 Decided January 19, 1988

Plaintiff Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu1679 delivered on May 12, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the special relationship between the transferor and the transferee shall be the time when the cause of taxation arises and the burden of proving that the transferor has a relationship between the transferor and the transferee shall be the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu795 delivered on March 24, 1987).

The court below is justified in holding that the tax disposition of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff and the non-party had a special relationship under Article 34(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, was illegal, on the ground that there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff had a close relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party, even if the non-party transferred the shares of this case to the plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of the cause of taxation of the gift tax of this case, that is, when the non-party transferred the shares of this case to the plaintiff, they did not know that

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)