기독교 종교재단이 가입교회로부터 받은 부동산이 명의신탁 부동산에 해당하는지 여부[국패]
Seoul High Court 2009Nu24957 (Law No. 12, 2010)
Seocho 207west 5202 ( October 06, 2008)
Whether a real estate received from a member religious foundation from a member religious association constitutes real estate held in title trust.
The Foundation is deemed to fall under the title trust in view of the fact that the Foundation has completed the registration of real estate from the individual member church and incorporated it into the foundation's fundamental property but does not impose any restrictions on the profits from use, the purpose of incorporation is to maintain the consistency of the religious order, to prevent the division of a church, and to have paid taxes imposed by the
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
○○ Foundation
The director of the tax office
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
Article 7 (1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act provides that "any person who is a taxpayer of property tax on housing as of the base date for taxation and exceeds 600 million won by adding up the published price of housing which is subject to property tax in Korea shall be liable to pay the comprehensive real estate tax." Article 183 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "any person who actually owns property as of the base date for property tax shall be liable to pay the property tax." "any person who actually owns property" refers to any person who actually owns the ownership of the relevant property regardless of whether he/she is registered as the owner on public register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6361, Nov
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff church, which joined the foundation, acquired the real estate of this case by using cash, contributions, church revenues, etc. for each of its members as the source fund, and the members of the 2nd association have imposed taxes on the real estate of this case under the name of the plaintiff foundation. If the funds are needed, the plaintiff foundation has de facto authority to dispose of the real estate of this case, such as providing the real estate as security or transferring funds to a third party after obtaining prior approval from the board of directors of the plaintiff foundation. The plaintiff foundation incorporated the real estate of this case into the foundation after obtaining registration of the real estate of this case from the individual members association, but it did not impose any restrictions on the use and profit-making of the real estate of this case into the religious foundation. According to the principles of the plaintiff foundation's organization and the head of the 7th association, all of the land, buildings and facilities of the 1st association are forced to be incorporated and preserved by the plaintiff church's association for the purpose of maintaining the consistency of the religious order, securing of individual church properties and its properties.
In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending legal principles
In addition, the argument of violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competence is merely the first argument in the final appeal, and even in light of the record, the Plaintiff’s assertion that a title trustee is against the principle of no-competence or the principle
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.