A. Whether a donor's duty to pay gift tax is a subordinate obligation

B. Whether Article 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is invalid in violation of the mother law

(c) Whether Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to a donor’s joint liability for payment of gift tax;

(d) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the donor’s payment of gift tax in lieu of the donee’s gift tax as a result of such gift constitutes a taxable object of gift tax on the ground that the donor did not fulfill his duty to pay

A. A person liable to pay gift tax is the donee who acquired the pertinent property, and the donor’s duty to pay gift tax is a subordinate obligation to the donee’s duty to pay tax, which is the primary obligation.

B. Article 29-2 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) does not change a donor's subordinate obligation into the principal obligation. Thus, Article 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14081 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that where a donee is liable to pay gift tax pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) of the same Act, when the donee has no address or domicile in Korea, when the donee has no address or domicile in Korea, when the donee disposes of the gift property before determining the taxable value of the gift tax, or when the donee loses the taxpayer capacity due to other reasons, when it is difficult for the donee to secure the tax claim even if the donee disposes of the gift tax and collects delinquent property of the donee, it shall be specifically listed in the case where the donee's liability to pay gift tax is recognized as a subordinate obligation to pay the gift tax, and it shall not be deemed as a violation of the Inheritance Tax Act or null and void.

C. Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes only prescribes the duty of joint payment of national taxes, etc. related to joint-owned property, joint-owned property, or property belonging to the joint-owned business, and does not apply to the donor’s joint-paid liability for gift tax in accordance with Article 3(1) of the same Act.

(d) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that it is not a duty of the donor to pay the gift tax instead of the donee's obligation to pay the gift tax on the gift by the donor, but a new gift is subject to gift tax.

Articles 29-2(2) and 29-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act; Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 25 and 3(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A.2. Supreme Court Decision 71Nu110 delivered on February 29, 1972 (No. 20 ① 26) 91Nu12813 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192,1201) 93Da49581 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1313);

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu8650 delivered on January 19, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The donee is a donee who takes over the pertinent property, and the donee's duty to pay the gift tax is a subordinate obligation to the donee who is the principal obligation. The donee's duty to pay the gift tax is not a subordinate obligation to the donee. Since there are provisions of Article 29-2 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), it does not change the donor's subordinate obligation into the main obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12813, Feb. 25, 1992). Article 38 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14081, Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the donee is not obligated to pay the gift tax pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the donee's address or residence is not clear, and it is difficult to secure the donee's duty to pay the gift tax as a joint and several obligation.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1, the donor, paid instead of the plaintiff's obligation to pay the gift tax on the gift, and the non-party 1, the donor, was subject to taxation of the gift tax is just, and there is no reason to argue that the above enforcement

2. The court below's determination is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for the argument.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)