In cases where a gift tax is imposed pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act on a donation to a third party due to the termination of a title trust in order to avoid the imposition of inheritance tax due to the inheritance of the real estate, whether the imposition of inheritance tax due to the inheritance of the real estate by the next heir constitutes double taxation (negative) and whether the principle of substantial taxation is against the principle of substantial taxation (negative)

If an heir of real estate exceeds the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a third party due to the termination of a title trust in order to avoid the imposition of inheritance tax due to the inheritance on the property, the gift tax imposed by deeming the ownership transfer to be a donation to the titleholder who has received the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) and the inheritance tax, which was intended to be avoided by the transfer of such registration, do not constitute double taxation by different taxable objects, and the inheritance tax imposed on the heir as the taxation requirement, and is not contrary

Articles 2 (see current Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), 32-2 (1) (see current Article 41-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 40-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14862 of Dec. 30, 1995), Articles 14 and 18 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu3847 delivered on October 15, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The court below recognized that the shares of 1/2 of the real estate in the Daechi-dong and Geumdong in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case") were owned by the deceased non-party 1, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that it was trusted to the deceased non-party 1 as the ownership of the deceased non-party 2 is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the grounds

2. Where the heir of real estate has transferred the registration of ownership transfer to a third party due to the termination of title trust in order to avoid the imposition of inheritance tax due to the inheritance on the property, gift tax imposed by legal fiction as donation to the person who received the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) and inheritance tax imposed by legal fiction as donation to the person who received the registration of ownership transfer transfer, and inheritance tax, which was intended to avoid by the transfer of title, are not subject to double taxation, and it is not contrary to the principle of substantial taxation,

Therefore, the court below's determination that the amount of the inheritance tax of this case is legitimate by including the value of the real estate of this case in the inherited property of this case, and the purport of rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion as to the prohibition of double taxation, principle of substantial taxation, taxation, violation of property rights, violation of precedents, violation of the reasoning and violation of the principle of substantial taxation, and omission of judgment, etc., are not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the compatibility purpose of the provisions of the prohibition of double taxation, principle of substantial taxation, fair taxation, and tax law, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)