In a case where a tenement house is constructed and sold directly on a building site at the time of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), and a building permit or registration is made under the name of a person, whether it can be deemed as a donation of the building site (negative)

If a person directly constructs and sells an additional apartment house at the time of the enforcement of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981); and only the name of the building permit, registration, and sale contract was entrusted to the person for convenience, the person shall not be deemed to have received a donation from the father and constructed the said apartment house. Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act on the deemed donation of donation is effective from January 1, 1982, and there is no room to apply this retroactively. The taxation based on the premise that the person received a donation of the said site is unlawful

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu800 delivered on June 21, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party, the father of the plaintiffs, was in office in the building design office after the plaintiff 1 graduated from ○○ University Construction Engineering Department (A. 31 August 1976) and was in office in the building design office. The plaintiff 2 decided to build and sell the apartment houses on the site of this case by using the plaintiffs' construction design function and idle labor power after completing military service. The plaintiff 1 had the plaintiff 2 conduct the construction design, and the plaintiff 2 supervised the construction work. The expenses and materials were paid by the same non-party, and the purchase price was received by the non-party 18 members of the above apartment houses. However, the non-party, the above non-party's father, who was in office as the head of the △△ University Construction Department (A. 3) and was in office in the name of the plaintiff 1, the title of the building permit of the above apartment house, which was the building permit of this case, and the plaintiff 2 received the above construction permit of this case under the name of the plaintiff's owner and the above apartment houses.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is sufficiently acceptable and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the reasoning and the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation.

In addition, according to Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act amended by Act No. 3474 of December 31, 1981, Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different with respect to property requiring the transfer of rights or the registration, registration, transfer of title, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "registration, etc."), the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated to the nominal owner on the date when the registration, etc. is made to the nominal owner notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, according to the Addenda of the same Act, the above Article of the Act provides that the above provision shall be enforced from January 1, 1982, and therefore, it is not reasonable to apply to this case. The non-party who filed a comprehensive income tax return under the names of the plaintiffs by paying the income tax under the names of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it cannot be said that denying the donation

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)

Since the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court is during overseas business trip, it is impossible to sign and seal it.