Whether the act of title trust of real estate in a way to avoid capital gains tax is null and void as an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act (negative)

Even if a real estate title trust was held in a way to avoid capital gains tax, the above title trust cannot be deemed null and void as an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act for such reason.

Articles 103 and 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Supreme Court Decision 64Da554 decided Jul. 21, 1964 (No. 12(2)) 80Da2475 decided Nov. 10, 1981 (Gong1982,41)

Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) LLC, Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na41762, 41779 decided April 17, 1991 (Counterclaim)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The court below recognized that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case was due to the plaintiff's title trust, and accepted the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit based on the premise of the plaintiff's ownership, and rejected the defendant's counterclaim, which is just and not erroneous in the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing

Even if the Plaintiff made a title trust to the Defendant by way of avoiding capital gains tax, such title trust cannot be deemed null and void as an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act for such reason. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)