명의신탁 증여의제규정에 의하여 증여세 부과한 처분의 적부[국승]
The legality of the disposition of gift tax imposed by the regulations on deemed gift under title trust.
The testimony of a witness who conforms to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made unilaterally under the name of the plaintiff with respect to the land of this case without agreement with the plaintiff is justifiable in the imposition of gift tax since it is difficult to believe
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.
The above facts are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (the receipt for tax payment), Gap evidence Nos. 5 (the same as Eul evidence No. 3), Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2- Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 4 Eul evidence No. 5 (the notice of gift tax taxation), and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (the certificate of fact), and the whole purport of pleadings No. 5 (the certificate of resident registration card) are as follows; the non-party Nos. 1, 5 (the certificate of land sale contract, the certificate No. 3 Eul evidence No. 1, 400 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 17, 256 1, 257 1, 205). It is so decided that the above facts are less than the above facts as 7-1, 307 00 o. 20 o- 25 o.
The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law. First, the plaintiff's husband was not the purpose of tax avoidance in completing the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case under the plaintiff's name, and there was no communication with the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff was unaware of the fact. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful in the application of Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Second, since the plaintiff did not file a voluntary report of gift tax pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act, the value of donated property was newly established by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981 and the value of donated property was evaluated according to the standard market price at the time of imposition pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988). However, the above disposition of this case was unlawful by the defendant's actual value at the time of acquisition of this case.
Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff's first assertion, Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property which requires the transfer, registration, change of ownership, etc. of the right, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner on the date when the registration is made, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The above provision provides that if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the nominal owner, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner on the date when the registration is made, but if the actual owner differs from the nominal owner without any agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner without the purpose of tax avoidance, or if the registration, etc. is unilaterally made without any specific purpose, it shall be interpreted that the above provision is not a gift, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the above provision has been made with respect to the plaintiff's testimony under the above real owner's name and the title holder's title, and there is no evidence to prove it in the above 300.
Next, we examine the plaintiff's second argument. According to the main text of Article 34-5 and Article 9 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988), the value of donated property at the time of acquisition of property by donation, but the value of donated property not reported under Article 20 at the time of imposition of gift tax is appraised at the price at the time of imposition of gift tax. According to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value of the property at the time of donation at the time of imposition of gift tax or the value of the property at the time of imposition of gift tax cannot be calculated at the market price at the time of donation. Since there is no dispute between the parties to the above report and the price of the land at the time of imposition of gift tax at the time of the above increase in the market price at the time of sale sale price at the time of this case, the amount equivalent to the above price at the sale price at the sale price at the real property at the above.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.