In a case where a person who has had a certain occupation and income but has not disclosed the details of the purchase price of the real estate in question on a daily basis even before the purchase price of the real estate has been made, the account

It is extremely unfair in light of our empirical rule and the purport of the Inheritance Tax Act to deem that a person who had had a certain occupation and income and had not disclosed the details of the procurement of the purchase price for acquiring the real estate in question at the time of investigating the source of funds, immediately deeming that the acquisition fund was donated.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 29-3 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu495 delivered on August 22, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on macroscopic evidence, found that the plaintiff had been engaged in the trade company in 1970 after graduating from 1970 and completed military service for 2 years from 1974.10 to 00 , and obtained a certain amount of income as an executive director at the time of purchasing the real estate in this case, and there was an accident sales of real estate as stated in the attached Table 1 through 3 between 1977 and 1979, and even thereafter there was a real estate transaction as stated in the same Table 4 and 5, but the above investigation was completed without any mentioning the facts as to the transactions as stated in the attached Tables 1 through 3, but the court below rejected the judgment of the court below on the ground that the above facts were not justified in finding that Eul's evidence 3 and 4, which were deemed as one of the donations by the defendant, were unlawful in light of the empirical rule and the purport of this case's acquisition of real estate in this case's occupation and income, and thus, it was not justified.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)