A. Whether a simple title trust constitutes “the legal fiction of donation” under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)

(b) Requirements for “the legal fiction of donation” as provided in Articles 32-2 and 31 of the Inheritance Tax Act (Law No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981);

A. The legal fiction of donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) is the purport that if a trust property is a trust property under Article 3 of the Trust Act, is not registered or recorded in the register of shareholders or the register of bonds, or is not entered in the register of bonds, the trust property shall be deemed to be donated to the trustee. Since a simple title trust cannot be deemed to be a trust under the Trust Act, it shall not be deemed to be a donation under the provisions of Article 3 of the former Trust Act, even if the fact of title trust is not registered or registered under the provisions of Article 3 of the Trust Act.

(b) In order to be deemed a donation pursuant to the provisions of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981), there is a separate nominal owner other than the actual owner, and the fact that a registration, etc. has been made in the name of the nominal owner is insufficient. It is limited to the case where there exists an agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and such registration, etc. has been made, so that

A. Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 32-2 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu226 delivered on September 10, 1985, 85Nu789 delivered on September 9, 1986. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu748 delivered on March 26, 1985. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 delivered on October 14, 1986

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu622 delivered on April 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Presumption of donation stipulated in Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981); the purport is that if trust property is a trust property under Article 3 of the Trust Act, is not registered or recorded in the register of shareholders or bond register, or does not enter such trust property in the register of shareholders, it shall be deemed that the trust property is donated to the trustee; and since simple title trust cannot be deemed a trust under the Trust Act, even if the fact of title trust is not registered or recorded in accordance with Article 3 of the Trust Act, it shall not be deemed a donation pursuant to the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu26, Sep. 10, 1985); if there is a lack of understanding between the owner and the actual owner of the right to whom an agreement was made under Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the title holder and the actual owner of the right to whom the agreement is declared, in addition to the transfer of right, registration or exercise of title.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the shares registered in the register of shareholders of the non-party Geum River Development Co., Ltd. were registered before the amendment of the above Inheritance Tax Act. The shares registered in the register of shareholders of the non-party food Co., Ltd. are recorded after the amendment of the Inheritance Tax Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each registration was made under trust under the Trust Act, or that it was made in accordance with agreement with the plaintiff and the non-party, the actual owner, or communication therewith. Rather, the non-party, as the chairperson of the so-called reputation group, owns shares of its affiliated company, and was entitled to tax evasion or concealment of the shares, without the plaintiff's consent. The non-party was unilaterally listed in the register of shareholders of each non-party Co., Ltd. in the register of shareholders without the plaintiff's consent, and the plaintiff did not inform the plaintiff of all of the facts. The plaintiff did not have exercised his rights as the plaintiff's right even after the register of shareholders, and it did not contain any error in law as to the non-party Co.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)