The meaning at the time of imposing gift tax, which is the base date for value evaluation.

If it is recognized that the donated property was donated after re-audit of the content that was not the gift, the value of donated property applied in the imposition of the gift tax is assessed as the standard market price at the time when the tax authority could have known the donation

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the meaning at the time of imposition of gift tax, which is the base date for the evaluation of donated property under Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree

According to Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the tax base and amount of gift tax pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act have not been reported, the value of donated property shall be calculated based on the market price at the time of the imposition of gift tax. In this case, at the time of the imposition of gift tax, the value of donated property shall be determined on the property concerned at the time of the imposition of gift tax, and the date of imposition of gift tax shall be the date of determination of the first tax base and determination of the value of donated property. If the tax authority, knowing that the Plaintiff acquired the land in this case and decided to grant a non-taxation, re-examines it again after the tax authority decided to do so, and then recognized the property as donated to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no reason to recognize it as the Plaintiff’s source

Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 9 of the same Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

1. Of the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on June 16, 1988, the part exceeding KRW 98,716,460 and KRW 17,948,440, the amount exceeding KRW 6,751,546, and KRW 1,229,372, among the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff and KRW 17,948,440, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on March 1, 198.

The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-2 of evidence No. 4, 2-1, 2-1 of evidence No. 2-2, 3, 4 (Calculation of Value of Gift Tax), 5 (83) and 6-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; the plaintiff's 6-1-6 of the above list No. 1-67 of the Act on Acquisition and Transfer of Real Estate No. 4 was recorded in the list No. 97 of this case; the plaintiff's tax office, which was the tax office having jurisdiction over the ownership of the plaintiff 1-6 of the above list No. 98 of the gift Tax Act, was stated in the list No. 97 of this case; the plaintiff 6-6 of the above list No. 97 of the gift Tax Act.

(1) On July 1984 and April 1985, the Plaintiff (1) investigated whether the above ○○ Head of the tax office imposed a gift on the land indicated in [Attachment List No. 1] 2 through 5 out of the pertinent land, and then asserted that the Plaintiff again imposed a tax without any tax exemption decision pursuant to Articles 107 and 117 of the National Tax Service Directive No. 916 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, which is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith prescribed in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to promote the stability of the legal life of the citizens and to restrain the abuse of the authority of the administrative agencies, and that the Plaintiff would be subject to the non-taxation decision without any discretion to cancel, change, or withdraw it. (2) Since the Defendant again imposed a tax disposition after the non-taxation decision was lawful, it should be determined on the basis of the above provisions of Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the above tax exemption decision.

First, in light of the above principles of trust and good faith under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the provisions of Articles 34-5 and 25(1) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the tax base and tax amount of gift tax shall be determined by the donee’s report. However, if there is no report or it is deemed unfair, the government shall determine the tax base and tax amount, and even if there is an omission or error in the tax base and tax amount, the tax base and tax amount shall be immediately determined. The plaintiff failed to report the tax base and tax amount of gift tax after acquiring each of the above land, and even if there was a non-taxation decision on each of the above land pursuant to the above provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act, if the plaintiff was found to have received the gift tax at the time of the first imposition of gift tax pursuant to the above provisions of the Act, it cannot be deemed that the above taxation disposition violates the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of non-taxation on each of the above land at the time of imposition of gift tax, and the value of each of the above land cannot be determined by the court below.

Furthermore, as seen above, the Defendant’s reasonable tax amount to be imposed on the land indicated in the list Nos. 2 through 7 of this case’s land acquired by the Plaintiff should be calculated in accordance with the standard market value under Article 5(2)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. Meanwhile, according to the above list Nos. 2 through 5(s) as to the land indicated in the above list No. 2 through 4, the date of non-taxation decision, and as to the land indicated in the above list No. 5, the date of July 1, 1984, which is the date of the above non-taxation decision, as to the land indicated in the above list No. 5, and as to the land indicated in subparagraphs 6 and 7 as of June 16, 198, each of the above list No. 5(s) should be calculated in accordance with the above list No. 2 through 5(s) of the inheritance tax and the above list No. 3(s) of the gift tax amount as stated in the above list No. 2 to the above list No. 6(s. 7). 3).

Therefore, the part of the defendant's taxation of this case which exceeded the above recognized tax amount is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying mutatis mutandis the proviso of Article 89 and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the costs of lawsuit under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.