[증여세등부과처분취소][공1990.6.15.(874),1186]
If a seller refuses to transfer a registration in the future to a corporation that is a substantial buyer, and thereby completing a registration of transfer of ownership under a title trust to a director individual, whether it is deemed donated (negative)
If the actual owner and the title holder are different under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the title holder on the date of transfer of registration. However, if it is evident that the actual owner and the title holder have different from the title holder due to any other circumstance without the purpose of tax avoidance, it may not be deemed as a donation. However, since the seller refuses the transfer from the seller to the name of the corporation, the seller would refuse to register the transfer of the ownership in a title trust with the actual purchaser, if the registration of transfer was completed, and then the registration of transfer was again completed in the name of the corporation that is the actual owner, the transfer of the ownership to the original owner
Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1234 Decided December 22, 1989 88Nu5464 Decided December 22, 1989
Note Macho
Head of Dong Busan District Office
Busan High Court Decision 88Gu1455 delivered on October 20, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers
If the actual owner and the registered titleholder are different under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner on the date of transfer of registration. However, if it is evident that the actual owner and the nominal owner have different from the nominal owner due to any other circumstance without the purpose of tax avoidance, it may not be deemed as a donation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1234 delivered on December 22, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5464 delivered on December 22, 1989).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the social welfare foundation type training institute planned to narrow and expand the vehicle driving training school among the protective facilities for vagabonds, and intended to purchase the forest of this case. The seller refused to transfer the forest of this case under the name of the juristic person. Thus, on July 16, 1984, the seller refused to transfer the forest of this case, and completed the registration of transfer under a title trust with the Plaintiff, who is the director, but again completed the registration of transfer on August 22, 1985, the above type welfare institute, which is the real owner, was deemed to have completed the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have been deemed to have been a gift because there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the transfer of the registration in the name of the Plaintiff. The above determination of recognition by the court below is just
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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)