A. Whether the taxpayer voluntarily reported and paid the tax base and tax amount before the taxation is a confession within trial as to the facts constituting the taxation basis

(b) Purport and application of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act;

A. It cannot be deemed that a taxpayer voluntarily led to a voluntary declaration and payment of the tax base and amount before the taxation disposition, but led to a judicial confession.

B. The legislative intent of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to avoid gift tax in the property requiring the transfer or exercise of the right to transfer or exercise of the right. As such, the title of registration is not to avoid gift tax, but to be deemed a gift in a case where the legal limitation or other unavoidable circumstances arise, rather than to avoid gift tax.

A. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3956 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992,1326) 92Nu4383 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992,2914) 92Nu17754 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1321)

Plaintiff

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu5408 delivered on August 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 11, 1986, the non-party Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) purchased the land in this case for the purpose of using it as a housing construction project site, and when a general construction company intends to purchase a housing construction project site, the land owner attempted to sell it at a higher price than the actual price, and avoided the transaction under the name of the corporation because the actual transaction price is likely to be revealed, and all of the land in this case was unable to acquire it under the name of the non-party company, which was a juristic person, because all of the land in this case was prior to its land category, and thereby, recognized the fact of acquiring the land in this case because it was impossible to acquire it under the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the court below did not find out that the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff, like the theory of lawsuit, voluntarily declared and paid the tax base and tax amount before the taxation disposition in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

The legislative intent of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to avoid gift tax in the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right. Thus, if the title of registration is not for the purpose of avoiding gift tax but for the purpose of avoiding gift tax, it is not for the case where the title of registration is different from the statutory limitation or other similar inevitable circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4383, Sept. 8, 1992). If the factual relation is the same, the judgment of the court below that held that the Defendant’s taxation of this case, which applied the above deemed donation provision, was unlawful, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, and the judgment of the party member pointing this out shall not be a precedent

This paper is without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)