Whether the imposition of gift tax constitutes a justifiable invalidity or invalidity.

At the time of the disposition of this case, it is very difficult for the defendant to confirm whether the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff for the land 7 through 9 was void of the cause. Therefore, it cannot be said that the above defect is objectively obvious, and therefore it cannot be viewed as a ground for invalidation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as evidence Nos. 1 and 2 ( Receipt for Tax Payment) without dispute, evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (No. 5) and evidence Nos. 14 and 13 (No. 14 through 22) and evidence No. 14 and evidence No. 22 (No. 97) of this case, the non-party 5 (No. 97) was awarded a contract for land rearrangement work on the land of the non-party 1, 00-Gun ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the non-party 1 and the plaintiff Kim○○○ completed the above construction, instead of receiving the construction cost, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were not registered under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 97-1 and the non-party 97-1 and the non-party 2 were not registered under the name of the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the tax office under the jurisdiction over the trust Act No. 97. 197.

As to Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall not apply to cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are differently registered without any purpose of tax avoidance in the Hanwon case as to whether 89HunMa38, Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is unconstitutional, so if the actual owner and the nominal owner are differently registered without any purpose of tax avoidance, gift tax shall not be imposed by applying Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Thus, the non-party 1, the husband of the plaintiff, registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet for the purpose of protecting his property at the time this decision becomes final and conclusive for the purpose of tax avoidance, and thus, the defendant did not impose gift tax by applying Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act to the above land for which 80,000 won or more of the above land was invalidated by applying the above provision.

Therefore, first of all, the plaintiff's first argument that Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the above property which requires the transfer or exercise of rights, registration or transfer of rights, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated to the nominal owner on the date when the registration is made, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The legislative intent of the above provision is to fundamentally block the tax avoidance or tax evasion using title trust. In light of the above legislative intent, where the actual owner and the nominal owner have different registrations, in principle, it shall be deemed that the actual owner have donated the property to the nominal owner. However, if it is obvious that the actual owner and the nominal owner have different registrations due to restrictions under the positive law, refusal of cooperation by a third party or other causes, it is difficult to find that the above provision was not a donation (see Constitutional Court Order 89HunMa38, Jul. 21, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5464, Dec. 22, 1989).

Next, considering the plaintiff's second argument, the above Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, and Eul evidence No. 1 (the judgment), which has no dispute over the establishment, the whole purport of the argument shall be considered as follows: on September 16, 1987, 00 ○○ District Court 87 Mahap589 against the plaintiff, which filed a lawsuit to revoke the registration of invalidation without any cause of transfer registration of the plaintiff's title 7 to 9 land in the separate sheet No. 7-9 from May 4, 198, and on June 15, 198, the above judgment became final and conclusive, and the fact that the registration of transfer of the plaintiff's title 7-7-9 land was revoked, and it is difficult for the defendant to claim that the above disposition of the plaintiff's title 9-27-3, which was not the real owner of the real property, should not be objectively applied to the above disposition of the plaintiff's title 9-3, which is not a third party's ownership invalidation (the above judgment).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that the disposition of this case is a disposition of invalidation with a significant and obvious defect, is without merit, is dismissed, and the costs of this case are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.