[증여세부과처분취소][공1986.1.1.(767),59]
(a)where the donee does not have a certain occupation or income, the burden of proof with regard to the source of funding;
B. Whether Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) deemed donation applies to a simple title trust (negative)
A. The fact that the transfer of assets is a gift is an obligation of the tax authority claiming the taxation requirement of the gift tax, but if the donee proves that the donee is a person without a certain occupation or import, the need to prove the source of funds shall return to the donee.
B. Presumption of deemed donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) is applicable to the trust under the Trust Act, and does not apply to simple title trust.
A. Article 29-2(b) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 32 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3494 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu710 Decided March 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 78Nu396 Decided January 16, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu121 Decided October 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu192 Decided July 26, 1983
Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu642 delivered on May 6, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.
The fact that the transfer of assets is a gift is responsible for the taxing authority that claims the taxation requirement of the gift tax, but if the donee proves that the donee is a person who has no certain occupation or income, the need to prove the source of funds shall return to the donee. It is the same as the argument of the lawsuit.
However, according to the records, there is no evidence of the defendant about the absence of certain occupation and income to the plaintiff who is a donee, and rather, it is recognized that there is certain occupation and income according to the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the original decision that there is no proof of gift is just and there is no argument about this issue
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
The deemed donation stipulated in Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), which was enforced at the time of the transfer of ownership, applies to trust under the Trust Act, and does not apply to simple title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Nu396, Jan. 16, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu121, Oct. 12, 1982; 83Nu192, Jul. 26, 1983).
The court below recognized that the registration of transfer which was completed before the plaintiff with respect to each share of the real estate in this case by employing the testimony of the non-party witness is a title trust, and there is no error in the incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, such as the assertion of the arguments in the above fact-finding process, even after examining the records, the original decision that excluded the application of the provision on the constructive gift in Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act from the application of the above legal principle on trust, such as the letter of argument, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the trust, such as the letter of argument,
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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice) No. 204 (Presiding Justice) No. 304,00,000,000,000,000,00