It is difficult to regard the title trust real estate solely because it is the source of purchase funds, such as providing acquisition funds.

Although it is alleged that it was inevitable title trust due to the property registration relationship under the Public Service Ethics Act, it cannot be deemed that the spouse is the title trust real estate in view of the fact that the spouse is subject to the property registration, that all legal relations were made under the name of the plaintiff alone, and that the building lease deposit was made

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquiring Property)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant revokes the imposition of the gift tax of 206, the gift tax of 567, 121, 770, and the gift tax of 207, the gift tax of 133, 232, 750, as the plaintiff on January 1, 207.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 ① 2006. 9. 26. ◎산 ◎◎군 ◎◎읍 ◎◎려 376-3 대 310.9㎡와 같은 리 376-4 대 78.6㎡를 매매대금 531，000，000원에，② 2006. 10. 19. ◎산 ◎◎군 ◎◎읍 ◎◎리 521-2 전 1，474㎡와 같은 리 520 전 1，646㎡를 매매대금 600，000，000원에，③ 2006. 10. 25. ◎산 ◎구 ◎◎동 산47-1 임야 1，087띠를 매매대금 114，000，000원에，④ 2006. 11. 1. ◎산 ◎구 ◎◎동 952-1 답 54㎡와 같은 동 952-3 답 2，657㎡(이하 위 토지들을 동틀어 '이 사건 토지'라 하고, 개별토지를 지칭할 경우 순서대로 '제1토지', '제2토지', '제3토지', '제4토지'라 함다)를 매매대금 590，000，000원에 각 취득하였고，⑤ 제1토지 지상에 철근콘크리트조 (철근)콘크리트지붕 4층 건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다)을 공사대금 459，250，000원에 신축하여 2007. 5. 21. 원고 앞으로 소유권보존등기를 마쳤다.

B. As a result of the Plaintiff’s investigation into the person acquiring the instant land and the building of this case, the Defendant, who was the husband of the Plaintiff, confirmed that the Plaintiff’s husband was the Plaintiff’s deposit in the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name of KRW 3,720,00,00 of the sales price of 116-3 0,000 square meters of 116-3,720,000 square meters of 14,000,000, 000 square meters and 24-1,000.

C. The Defendant considered 282,850,000 won (459,250,000 won - 142,000,000,000 won + 114,000,000,000 won + 590,000 won + 142,000,000,000) and 282,850,000 won (459,250,000,000 won for early refund, and 34,400,000 won for value-added tax (459,250,000 won - 142,00,000, 340,000 won - - 34,000,000,000 won) as 217,800,0000 won, and 2701,275,207,000,000 won for the Plaintiff’s gift tax, and 2075.7.7.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul's evidence 2 to 8 (if there are additional numbers, each number number distribution), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

The source of the acquisition fund of this case was ○○○○, but the actual owner of the land of this case and the building of this case also acquired by lending the Plaintiff’s name, which is the wife, in order to avoid difficulties in filing a report on its property change, which is a public official of Grade V on the 00,000, and since the title trust was valid for the purpose of evading tax, evading compulsory execution, or evading legal restrictions, and therefore, the disposition of this case, which was presumed to have been donated by the Plaintiff, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquiring Property)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 원고와 천○현은 법률상 부부인데, 천○현은 2009. 1. 12. 현재 지방교육행정 사무관으로 ◎◎고등학교에 재직하고 있으며, 천○현 명의의 부동산으로는 ◎산 ◎◎ 군 ◎◎읍 ◎◎리 370-1 외 l펼지 지상의 ◎◎지구 □□□□1단지 102동 1801호와 ◎산 ◎구 ◎◎동 산4 임야 11，901㎡가 있다.

(2) As to the land No. 1 on September 16, 2006, the Plaintiff sold on September 28, 2006, on the land No. 206, on October 3, 2006, on the land No. 3, and on October 4, 2006, each Plaintiff’s sole name.

After concluding a sales contract, each purchase price was withdrawn from the Agricultural Cooperatives Account under the name of the plaintiff, and all of the land of this case was completed in the name of the plaintiff alone.

(3) On December 4, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract agreement on the new construction of the building of this case with Sejong Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. and paid the construction cost in the name of the Plaintiff, and withdrawn and paid the construction cost in the said Nonghyup. On May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership of the building of this case under its own name.

(4) On April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on 102, and 103 of the building of this case, and received KRW 10,000,00 from the Plaintiff’s account in his own sole name. On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on 101 of the building of this case with the Plaintiff and deposited KRW 50,000,000 in the said agricultural bank account. On May 25, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on 2,3, and 4th floor of the building of this case, and received part of the lease deposit with the said agricultural bank account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 8, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) If the burden of proving the existence of a private theory of taxation is against the tax authority, but it is proved that the other party is presumed to have a taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule, the other party should prove the circumstances that are not subject to the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6006, Apr. 27, 1990). Since the real estate acquired by one spouse in one’s sole name during marriage under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, if it is apparent that the other spouse is not the nominal owner, then the nominal owner may be presumed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund from the spouse. In such a case, as the real estate concerned is not the special property of the nominal owner, but the real estate concerned is a title trust between the other spouse, a taxpayer shall assert and prove that the acquisition fund cannot be deemed a donation.

In addition, in order to reverse "the presumption of special property" under Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must bear the price of the pertinent real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired the said real estate in order to actually own the said real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du15177, Dec. 22, 1998). Thus, the presumption of special property without the name of the other spouse is reversed merely because the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund, and it does not constitute a title trust on the pertinent real estate. In addition, in order to reverse the "the presumption of special property" under Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act, whether the other spouse bears the price for the real possession of the pertinent real estate by taking into account all the circumstances revealed by the relevant evidence, it is difficult to deem that there was a title trust solely on the ground that the other spouse, other than the nominal owner, was the source of the purchase fund.

(2) With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff was provided with the instant acquisition fund of KRW 2,17,850,00 in total from the husband in the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, and the Plaintiff paid the instant acquisition fund of KRW 2,17,850,00, which is the husband. As to this, the Plaintiff was unable to pay for the real estate transaction over several times as a public official, and there is no reason to donate to the Plaintiff the real estate acquired with the funds selling inherited property. As long as the instant land and the instant building were to be acquired under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the instant land, entered into each contract as a contracting party, and the designation of the object to purchase and the settlement of the sales price of the object to purchase was based on the intention of KRW 0,00,00,000. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances recognized by the above facts, i.e., the plaintiff did not have any particular occupation or income after marriage, and (ii) according to Articles 3 and 4 of the Public Service Ethics Act, since a person without registration is a state public official of Grade IV or higher in general service and his spouse's property is registered property, the plaintiff's property also falls under the plaintiff's property subject to registration even though he becomes liable for registration even though he does not fall under the person liable for registration. ③ From the sale and purchase contract of the land of this case, all legal relations up to the construction and lease of the building of this case were made under the plaintiff's sole name, management of the building of this case was made, and the lease deposit of the building of this case was disbursed by both the plaintiff's land purchase fund of this case and the new construction of the building of this case were deposited and deposited in the account under the plaintiff's name.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, where the Plaintiff received the instant funds from ○○○○○, and determined that the instant land and the instant building were acquired, and gift tax was imposed on the said land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.