[증여세부과처분취소청구사건][고집1982(특별편),347]
Presumption of Donation of Trust Property without indication of trust
In the event that a trust property, as provided for in Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 3197 of Dec. 28, 1979), is established for a trust with respect to the property, if a trust property is not indicated by the registration, etc. pursuant to Article 3 of the Trust Act, the trust property shall be considered to have been donated to the trustee, and in the case of a trust under a trust with only the name of the contractor, it shall not be deemed to have been a trust under the Trust Act as provided for in Article 1(2) of the Trust Act
Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 3197), Article 1(2) and Article 3 of the Trust Act
Raskhee
The Head of Seoul Southern District Office
The imposition of gift tax of KRW 140,867,461 and defense tax of KRW 28,173,492 against the plaintiff on March 17, 1981 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
The facts that the defendant imposed orders on the plaintiff on March 17, 1981 are without dispute between the parties concerned, and as such, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 3-1 (detailed investigation report), 4-2, 3-2 (Additional Investigation Report), 3-4, 9-2 (Additional Investigation Report on Land Secured for Land Secured for Land Secured for Land Secured for Land Secured for Land Secured for Land Development, and 9-2, 9-1, 3-4 and 9-2 of the above land purchased from the non-party 9-2, the non-party 2, the non-party 9-1, 36-1, 36-1, 36-1, 36-1, 36, 98-2, 197, 4-1, 36-1, 36, 198-2, 2018.
The plaintiff did not receive a donation of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but only consented to changing the above purchaser's name in its name at the request of the above loan, so the above disposition of imposition was erroneous. Thus, the defendant's acquisition of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay without obtaining compensation, and received a donation from the above loan pursuant to Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act at the time, and the above disposition of imposition is legitimate. Thus, the above disposition of imposition is legitimate. Since the plaintiff's purchase of the land in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development purposes, the above disposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of imposition on the price on the price on the price on the above.
Next, whether the trust in the name of the purchaser as above is considered as a donation under the provisions of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) at the time of the above recognition or whether the trust in the name of the purchaser is considered as a donation or not, in a case where the trust is established with respect to the property as stipulated in the above provision, the trust property is considered as a donation to the trustee in a case where the fact that is a trust property is not registered or indicated by registration, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the Trust Act, and in a case where the trust is established with respect to the property as stipulated in the above provision, it cannot be considered as a trust under the Trust Act as stipulated in Article 1(
Thus, the above disposition of taxation is a defect in taxation requirements, and thus, it is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate, and the lawsuit costs are accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition at the defendant's expense as the losing party.
Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge)