[증여세등부과처분취소][공1990.12.1.(885),2323]
In the case of title trust with a third party because the real estate purchased with outside capital of a juristic person could not be registered in the future of the juristic person (negative)
If a major shareholder of a mutual savings bank, who was in charge of the whole business of the mutual savings bank, purchases the instant real estate with out-of-the-counter funds, and thus, was unable to make a registration in the future of the said bank, and thus, the Plaintiff was held in title trust, it cannot be deemed that there was an objective of tax avoidance. In such a case, the gift tax pursuant to Article 32-
Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act
Egresponding
Head of Nowon Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1420 delivered on December 26, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on the evidence, that the non-party Kim Il- Chang used the name of the chairman as a major shareholder of the non-party Young-gu Mutual Savings and Finance Company, and was in charge of the whole business, but it did not purchase the real estate with the extra funds prepared in collusion with the above credit cooperative's business assistant Kim Jong-Un, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, and determined that the above registration was made in accordance with the agreement with
However, since the court below's testimony is difficult to believe or believe, and other evidence alone cannot be deemed as having been made without the consent of the plaintiff, in light of the fact that the gift tax was imposed based on the registration of transfer of ownership that was made in the future by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a major shareholder who was the representative director of the above credit cooperative and the highest south of the witness is the representative director of the above credit cooperative.
Therefore, the court below's finding of facts as stated in its reasoning alone based on the evidence shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act against the rules of evidence. Therefore, the argument that points this out is with merit.
However, according to the evidence held by the court below, since it is difficult to recognize that the non-party Kim Il- Chang, etc., who was in charge of the above credit cooperative's overall business, purchased the real estate of this case with outside funds and could not make a registration in the future of the above credit cooperative, it is hard to find that the plaintiff held the title trust, and in such a case, it is obvious that there was a purpose of tax evasion, and in such a case, it is not possible to impose gift tax pursuant to Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act. Accordingly, the court below's conclusion that the court below's determination that the disposition of gift tax of this case was
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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)