If a person with a certain occupation, history, and business experience fails to clearly state the source of a part of the business fund, whether a donation is made (negative)

If a person has a certain occupation and a considerable financial or business experience, he/she cannot be deemed as having received a donation of money from another person on the ground that the source of part of the business fund is not clearly disclosed.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu340 Delivered on July 22, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Head of Hongsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu5336 delivered on April 11, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that there is evidence that the plaintiff, based on the facts acknowledged by the evidence, constructed the building fund itself in the construction of the houses jointly with the non-party who is the punishment of the court below. In light of the records, the fact finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out.

In addition, if a person has a certain occupation and a considerable financial or business experience, it cannot be deemed that a portion of the business fund has been donated to another person immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu340, Jul. 22, 1986). Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s source of funds is unclear, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s deposit cannot be presumed to have been donated from his father on the ground that the Plaintiff’s source of funds was operating a business, such as imposing sanctions, multiples, etc., and leasing a building, and that the Plaintiff’s deposit was running the business, and that the Plaintiff’s deposit was running the business cannot be presumed to have been donated from his father.

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)