[증여세등부과처분취소][공1986.10.15.(786),1315]
In case where the title of ownership of the real estate owned by the debtor is transferred to the representative of the creditor for the purpose of mortgage, whether it is deemed donated under Article 32-2 of the Inheritance
If a title of ownership of real estate owned by an obligor has been transferred to the representative of the obligee for the purpose of securing the obligees' claims, it is nothing more than that of the obligees holding a security right, rather than that of the obligees holding the ownership of such real estate, and even if the representative of the company has registered in his/her sole name, there is no room to apply the provision on deemed donation under Article 32-2 of
Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 85Nu919 Decided February 25, 1986
Plaintiff
Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu54 delivered on November 6, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since between April 21, 1981 and February 2, 1983, the plaintiff extended 204,938,00 won (including 2,740,000 won of plaintiff's claim amount) with 20 non-party unlimited partnership company and Mayor respectively between the non-party unlimited partnership company and the non-party unlimited partnership company, and for the preservation of the claim, the plaintiff's share of 1/2 of the building of this case, which is located in the non-party company of this case 325-4, Dongdong-gu, Busan, Busan, which is the non-party company of this case, was elected as the above creditor's representative, and the provisional registration of preservation of ownership transfer right due to subscription was made in its name, but the above loan was completed in its name from the above company, and the defendant, who is the tax authority of this case, recognized the non-party 20 creditors' share of the above non-party and the above 20-10-2 of the inheritance tax amount as the above claim amount.
If the title of ownership of the building of this case owned by the obligor for the purpose of securing the obligee's claim as determined by the court below is transferred to the plaintiff, the obligee's representative is not the ownership of the building of this case but the obligee's security right. (See Supreme Court Decision 25Nu85Nu919, Feb. 25, 1986) Even if the plaintiff was selected as the obligee's representative and registered as the sole obligee's representative, there is no room to apply the deemed donation provision of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act to this purport. Therefore, the decision of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the misconception of facts.
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 Justices.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)