A. Whether it is deemed that a able person donated the relevant shares of the building to the children in cases where he/she constructed a leased building on the ground owned by him/her and in cases where he/she constructed a new building in a common name with those children who do not have any occupation or import;

B. In case where a person who holds a large number of real estate acquires some real estate in the name of a minor son, whether separate evidence exists to acknowledge that the above real estate was actually donated to the son in the future in order to raise the proceeds from the disposal of the above real estate to the financing source for other gift cases (affirmative)

C. Whether it is necessary to prove not only the existence of the proceeds from the disposal of real estate but also the fact that the proceeds from the disposal of real estate has been used as a fund for the acquisition of the property recognized as a gift property (affirmative)

(d) The case holding that if a bank borrowed a large amount of money from a financial institution by means of discount of bill as student status under 20 years of age at the time of loan, the above borrowed money should be deemed to have been borrowed with a reference to financial transaction performance unless there are other special circumstances;

A. In a case where a person with sufficient capacity constructs a building under a separate name with children without certain occupation or import while constructing a leased building on the ground owned by him/her, it is reasonable to view that the said children contributed the share of the building to children while building a new building by independently investing funds, unless there is a separate proof as to the fact that the said children provided the new building funds.

B. In a case where a number of real estate holders acquire some real estate in the name of a minor son, the registration alone cannot be readily concluded that there was a transfer of real ownership from his father in the future due to the donation in the future. As such, there is a need for a separate evidence to acknowledge that the above real estate was actually donated in the future, in order to raise the disposal price, etc. of the said real estate to another source of financing another donation case.

C. If the proceeds from the disposal of real estate property is the sole financing source of a person recognized as a donee, a donee is able to easily present financial data. Therefore, it is necessary to prove that not only the existence of the proceeds from the disposal of property but also the proceeds from the disposal of property recognized as a gift property has been used as a fund for the acquisition of property, etc.

(d) The case holding that a borrower borrowed a large amount of money from a financial institution according to the bill discount method as a student status if all the borrower was under 20 years of age at the time of loan shall be deemed to have borrowed money with a financial transaction record, barring any other special circumstances, on the ground that it is extremely exceptional in light of the transaction concept or the loan practice of the bank.

Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3931 delivered on May 23, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party 1 and its children were newly constructed under the joint names of the plaintiffs, and completed May 30, 1984, and five of these five, five, the second underground floors above the ground and the 10th 7,146.18 square meters above the ground surface of Gangnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted), which had been completed registration of preservation of ownership, were donated from the above non-party 1 to the plaintiffs on July 16, 198, and confirmed that the above 1/5 shares above were donated from the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 had no dispute over the imposition disposition of gift tax of this case, and that the above non-party 1 and the plaintiffs raised the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the construction contract of this case for the building construction of 1,000 square meters above 1,0000 won and the construction charges of this case were newly constructed 28.1,584.

2. (A) Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s determination as to the details of the Plaintiffs’ financing, Plaintiff 1 is the sum of KRW 221,732,810,025 won for expropriation of land in Jung-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu ( Address 3 omitted), Seoul ( Address 4 omitted), KRW 44,07,085 won for the total of the proceeds from sale and expropriation of three parcels of land, including the proceeds from sale of the above officer’s building on the ground of the above officer’s land, KRW 40,707,70 for the operating profit reserve between February 1, 1973 and March 1984; KRW 107,820,000 for the instant building; KRW 201,732,810 for the instant case; KRW 58,200,200 for the above officer’s land; KRW 4087,708,707,570 for each of the above units of land; KRW 20985,7075,707,75,207,207,207, etc.

Meanwhile, according to the statements in the evidence No. 21-1 to No. 21-4, witness Nonparty 2, and witness Nonparty 3's testimony, etc., Plaintiff 1 is 24 years of age, Plaintiff 2 is 23 years of age, Plaintiff 3 is 18 years of age, Plaintiff 4 is 18 years of age, and only Plaintiff 1, the south of the west, was removed from the Gun for two years of the management date of the above officer building, and Plaintiff 2 has no special occupation (as stated in the evidence No. 22-2 to No. 4, the above plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4 are deemed to have been employed after 1985), and all of the plaintiffs are deemed to have no specific occupation or income, while the above non-party 1, the plaintiffs' witness 1, who was the plaintiff's own real estate, was able to be aware of the fact that there were many real estate owners, and if the person had newly constructed a new building or newly constructed a new building with no income from the building.

However, among each of the above amounts recognized by the court below, the remaining amounts except the rental deposit for the building of this case shall be deemed to be the amount that the plaintiffs raised from the cost of new construction of the building of this case. As to the rental deposit for the building of this case, the lease contract between the plaintiffs, the co-owner of the building of this case, and the lessees and the above non-party 1, was entered into under the joint name of the above non-party 1, and the lease deposit was entered into as the cost of construction work, barring any special circumstances, it shall be the amount to be deducted from the donation value in the event that the plaintiffs in the future consider the share of the building of this case as the property to be returned in accordance with the ratio

(B) First, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, among the above lands, the following facts can be revealed: (a) the land price and the expropriation price are ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 6 omitted) shares in the above land around January 15, 1974; (b) before the subdivision ( Address 3 omitted); and (c) before the subdivision ( Address 3 omitted); (d) the land is divided into four parcels, such as ( Address 3 omitted); (e) the ( Address 7 omitted); and (e) the ( Address 4 omitted); and (v) the ( Address 5 omitted); and (e) the above non-party 1 acquired the land under his name around February 18, 1976; and (e) the court below recognized the above sale price and expropriation price as the financial source of the plaintiffs, it appears that the above non-party 1 donated each of the above land to the plaintiffs at the time of acquiring it in the name of the plaintiffs.

However, according to the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and No. 4-1 through 5, it can be known that at the time of the above registration under the plaintiffs' names, the plaintiffs were students of 11 to 17 years old age, while the above non-party No. 1 acquired and owned real estate with financial capacity and distributed the above names to the plaintiffs and other relatives, who are children, or other relatives. Thus, in case where some of the owners of real estate acquire real estate in the name of a minor child, it cannot be concluded that the transfer of substantial ownership by donation from his father was made in the future. Thus, it is necessary to establish separate evidence to acknowledge that the above real estate was actually donated before the above real estate was donated in advance to other gift cases.

Even after examining the evidence adopted by the court below, there is no evidence to find that the above land was actually donated to the plaintiffs. Thus, it is erroneous that the court below concluded that the sale price and the expropriation price of the above land were owned by the plaintiffs.

(C) The lower court acknowledged that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 raised funds for the construction of the building of this case by reserving KRW 40,707,000, and Plaintiff 3 as profits from the operation of the building on the ground, including the above ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 6 omitted) from February 1973 to March 1984, the lower court held that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 raised funds for the construction of the building of this case by reserving KRW 40,707,00,000, respectively, but the evidence supporting this is merely the witness Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2’s testimony as supporting evidence, and the above Nonparty 4’s testimony as a tax accountant on behalf of the Plaintiff et al. submitted the data concerning the new building of this case to the competent tax office. Nonparty 2’s testimony as a witness is also a form of new building of this case, and it is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiffs had a share in the above ground and did not have a share ownership.

In order to recognize the operating profit reserve fund of the above officer building as the financing source of the plaintiffs for the new building of this case, the court below should have deliberated on the special circumstances as follows: (a) the above officer building was constructed in any form at any time, and the name of the ownership in the public register was left; (b) how the operating profit was accumulated and distributed; and (c) further, as at the time of 1973 when the profit of the officer building was first generated, the plaintiffs did not reach the age of the 11 to 13 years old; and (d) therefore, in order to deem that the operating profit reserve fund of the above officer building was attributed to the plaintiffs in this case, there should have been circumstances to see that the above officer building was reasonable.

(D) Furthermore, as seen above, since the plaintiffs did not have any occupation or income at the time of the first construction of the building in this case, the plaintiffs' ability to raise funds to the financing source of the building in this case is the whole amount of the disposal proceeds or the expropriation proceeds of the above land as decided by the court below. As such, if the disposal proceeds of real estate disposal, etc. are the only financing source of a person recognized as a donee, the donee can provide financial data easily. Thus, it is necessary to prove that not only the existence of the disposal proceeds of real estate disposal but also the disposal proceeds have been used as the acquisition fund of the property recognized as a gift property.

In light of the records, there is no evidence suggesting that the above sales proceeds, etc. have been raised with the new construction fund of the building of this case as the plaintiffs' investment, and rather, there is no evidence suggesting that the provisional deposit account book No. 13 is entered as the president's number and its half, or that the above provisional deposit is entered as a single fixed debt item in the balance sheet No. 14 and 15, etc., the fact that the new construction fund of this case was entered as the single fixed debt item in the balance sheet of No. 14 and 15, etc. Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the disposal proceeds, etc. of the above land, etc. were provided with the new construction fund of this case as the plaintiffs' investment is erroneous in finding facts against the rules of evidence.

(E) The lower court recognized that Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4 borrowed each amount of KRW 50,00,000 and KRW 80,000,000 in the form of a bill discount from the National Investment Finance Corporation around 1983. It is deemed that the Plaintiffs’ legal representative asserted that the above Plaintiffs borrowed each of the above money in the form of a bill discount from the national investment finance at the above date and extended the period by three months by the bill discount method.

However, according to Gap evidence 23-1 to 4, etc. presented by the plaintiffs' attorney as evidence of the above assertion, financing by the bill discount method as above, the issuer is Gangwon-do building. However, it merely borrowed a bill with the name of the representative at discount from the above national investment financing, and it seems that the plaintiffs merely borrowed money from the above national investment financing. In addition, as seen above, the above plaintiffs at the time of the above loan was acknowledged to have been the student status as the age of less than 20 years old, and borrowing of large amount of money from the financial institution by the bill discount method as above cannot be seen as extremely exceptional in light of the commercial concept or bank lending practices.

Therefore, barring any special circumstances, the above loan shall be deemed to have issued bills in the name of Gangnam Building and borrowed money from the above national investment finance, and even if the representative name of the building in the name of the above plaintiffs was stated in the name of the above plaintiffs, it shall be deemed that it is merely a mere nominal loan. The above point is supported by the record that the loan from the above national investment finance is stated as fixed debt items on the balance sheet of the building in this case submitted by the plaintiffs' legal representative (Evidence No. 14 and 15) and the loan is not stated as the above plaintiffs' investment amount, or it is not stated as the above plaintiffs' investment amount, or it appears in the record that the above loan is returned from the Gangnam Building in December 30, 1986 (refer to the letter of request for review of evidence No. 1).

3. As above, it is reasonable to view that the funds that the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs raised as the gold source of the building of this case were donated to the plaintiffs, except for the rental deposit of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' shares in the building of this case are donated to the plaintiffs, unless there are other special circumstances.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the shares in the building of this case in the name of the plaintiffs were not donated to the plaintiffs is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to special circumstances or by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal are

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho