[1] Requirements for recognizing the real estate acquired by one spouse in the sole name during the marriage as property under a title trust of the other spouse

[2] In a case where the other party has completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the termination of title trust through the formal trial procedure, whether the property assumed as unique property of either side of the couple constitutes a gift (affirmative with qualification)

[1] Since the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in the name of a single owner is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner, the presumption is not reversed merely on the ground that the other spouse actually bears the burden of paying the price for the pertinent property in order to recognize that he/she was a title trust for convenience as the actual owner of the real estate, and that there was a cooperation with him/her in the acquisition of the real estate, or there was an assistance in the marriage life.

[2] If one party of a married property acquired in the name of one of the married couple and presumed to be his/her peculiar property has completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust through the formal trial procedure, unless there is any assertion or evidence to reverse the presumption of the unique property, the donation of the pertinent real estate between the married couple by taking the form of the cancellation of title trust at the time of the registration shall be deemed to have been made.

[1] Articles 103 and 830(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 29-2(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) (see current Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da16171 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 265), Supreme Court Decision 92Da21982 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 451), Supreme Court Decision 94Da42778 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1153), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu707 delivered on June 12, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1913) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4086 delivered on March 27, 199 (Gong190, 103), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu197985 delivered on April 16, 197 (Gong1999, 103) 97Nu197485 delivered on April 197

Plaintiff

the director of the tax office of Western

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu43019 delivered on July 29, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

Since real estate acquired by one side of a couple in the marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner of the real estate, in order to be recognized as a title trust for the convenience of the other party as the actual owner, the presumption is not reversed solely on the ground that the other party has actually obtained the said real estate by bearing the consideration for the said property, and that there was a cooperation with him in acquiring it, or there was an assistance in the marriage life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu707, Jun. 12, 1998; 92Da21982, Dec. 11, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the farmland in this case with the size of 5,477 square meters in the name of the above non-party only with the money created by the plaintiff, and made the registration of transfer in the name of the above non-party for convenience, on two or five years after the plaintiff started a marital life with the non-party who is the husband. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of transfer was made in the name of the above non-party for convenience. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the plaintiff's measures are acceptable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation or

The Second Ground of Appeal

If one party of a married property acquired in the name of one of the married couple and presumed to be his/her peculiar property has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust through the formal trial procedure, unless there is any assertion or evidence to reverse the presumption of such peculiar property, it shall be reasonable to deem that the gift between the married couple was made on the ground of the type of the cancellation of title trust at the time of the registration. In this regard, the decision of the court below which recognized that the fact of donation of the property, which is the requirement for imposing the gift tax of this case, has been proved in the same purport, is acceptable, and the right to claim property division between the married couple, has complementary nature not only as the liquidation of the common property acquired by the married couple, but also as there is no room for the court below to apply the legal principle to this case where there is a change in the special property during the marriage. Therefore, there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)