피상속인이 명의신탁한 재산으로서 상속재산에 해당함[국승]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu51567 (24 April 2014)
Property trusted by an ancestor and constitutes inherited property;
Since the leased income generated from land and buildings appears to be real estate held in title trust by an ancestor, such as deposits into the account in the name of the decedent, it constitutes inherited property, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal to newly assert the fact that the fact was not asserted by the fact-finding court in the final appeal or to assert the omission of judgment as to the allegation that
Article 7 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2014Du43295 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax
1. United StatesA2. KimB3. KimCC
O Head of tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu51567 Decided September 24, 2014
January 14, 2016
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, determined that the share in the name of KimD among the instant land and buildings was nominal trust by Kim E (hereinafter referred to as "the decedent"), the decedent of the Plaintiffs, to KimD, and constituted the inherited property of the decedent.
Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, or by exceeding
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
The gist of this part of the ground of appeal is that the share in the name of the FF among the land and buildings of this case is not the inherited property of the inheritee, and the value of the inherited property should be calculated except for the shares of the inheritee.
However, according to the records, the plaintiffs only submitted an application for resumption of the pleading in which such assertion was stated after the closing of argument in the court below, but no such assertion was made.
Therefore, the allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since it newly claims in the final appeal that the plaintiffs did not assert in the fact-finding court or asserts the omission of judgment in the fact-finding court.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.