Seoul High Court 2007Nu31012 (Law No. 21, 2008)

The current property and the location, use and item of the area are identical or similar to the current property at the market price.

The provision that the transaction value, etc. of the property identical or similar to the relevant property subject to taxation shall be included in the market price is clear that the scope of the market price stipulated in Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is specified as the parent

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

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The main sentence of Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "the value of the property on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied shall be the market price as of the date on which the inheritance commences or the date of donation (hereinafter "date of appraisal")." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be the value which is generally accepted if free transactions occur between many and unspecified persons and which is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public sale price, and appraisal price". In addition, the main sentence of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1933, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree") provides that the value of the property at issue is recognized as the market price under the conditions prescribed by the Presidential Decree of expropriation, public auction price or other property.

As above, Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act declares the principle of market value in the evaluation of inherited or donated property under paragraph (1). Article 60 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the market value is formed through a general and normal transaction and an objective exchange value should be reflected, and the specific scope of the market value shall be determined by Presidential Decree. The provision of transaction value, etc. on the "relevant property", which is subject to taxation under each subparagraph of Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree delegated by it, is an example of representative cases that can be seen as the market value of inherited or donated property (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du5098, Aug. 21, 200). Since Article 60 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not limit only the transaction value, etc. on the "relevant property" subject to taxation to include only the transaction value, etc. on the "property that is identical or similar to the relevant property subject to taxation" to the extent that it is inconsistent with the principle of market value under Article 60 (2) of the Act.

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of this case, which assessed the value of donated property pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of this case, is lawful. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of property rights

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of the contents of Article 78(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) and the fact that an additional payment for additional gift tax is to induce a taxpayer to pay the amount of tax in good faith, and is an administrative sanction against a violation of the obligation to pay tax, considering that the amount of tax has not been paid by the due date for payment is financial benefits, it cannot be deemed that even if the amount of tax has not been paid due to a difference in the appraisal of the value of donated property, it cannot be deemed that the subject of an additional payment for unfaithful payment is excluded from the subject of imposition. Furthermore, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for paying the amount of tax to be paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1630

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that there is a justifiable ground that it is not attributable to the neglect of the duty to pay gift taxes, since it is impossible for the plaintiff as an individual to report and pay gift taxes after confirming the price of similar transaction cases pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

3. Conclusion

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