[1] In a case where it is proved that the source of acquiring funds for real estate acquired in the name of a single spouse during marriage is the other spouse, the presumed fact (=donation of acquiring funds) and the person who bears the burden of proving the opposing fact

[2] Requirements to recognize the presumption of a special property as property under a title trust of the other spouse by reversing the presumption of a special property with respect to real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of a single spouse during marriage

[1] The burden of proof as to the existence of a taxable fact shall be proved by the tax authority, but if it is proved that the other party is presumed to have a taxable fact in light of the empirical rule, the circumstances should not be subject to the application of the empirical rule. If, under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of a spouse during marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner, and if it is discovered that the other spouse is not the nominal owner, the nominal owner of the real estate can be presumed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund from the spouse. In this case, the fact that the real estate concerned cannot be deemed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund because it is not the special property of the nominal owner, but the real estate concerned

[2] In order to reverse “the presumption of special property” under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must bear the price for the pertinent real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired the pertinent real estate in order to possess the said real estate in substance. Thus, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that the presumption of special property without any condition has been reversed and a title trust was established as to the pertinent real estate. In light of all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse has paid the price for the real estate in question individually and specifically, whether or not the other spouse has paid the price for the real estate

[1] Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6006 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1183) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du15177 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 264)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Kim & Lee Pacific, Attorneys Yu-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu19933 delivered on April 14, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are also examined.

The burden of proof of the existence of the facts requiring taxation may be presumed to have been donated by the spouse, if the other party is presumed to have been aware of the facts in light of the empirical rule, but the other party is not subject to the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6006, Apr. 27, 1990). If, under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one spouse in his/her own name during marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner, if the other spouse, who is not the nominal owner, has discovered the fact that the source of the funds requiring acquisition of the real estate in question is not the nominal owner, once the nominal owner is presumed to have been donated the funds to the acquisition of the real estate in question. In this case, the taxpayer shall assert and prove that the real estate concerned cannot be deemed to have been donated

In addition, in order to reverse “the presumption of special property” under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must bear the price of the pertinent real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired the said real estate in order to actually own the said real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du15177, Dec. 22, 1998). Thus, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust as to the pertinent real estate merely because the presumption of special property was reversed, and it does not mean that there was a title trust as to the pertinent real estate by comprehensively considering all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence. In particular, if it is difficult to acknowledge this point by other evidence, it is difficult to deem that there was a title trust solely on the basis that the other spouse, not the nominal owner, was the source of the purchase fund.

On the other hand, barring special circumstances, such as where a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer to a certain taxable fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it cannot readily deny the value of the written confirmation, barring any such special circumstance as it is difficult to take the written confirmation as evidence materials to prove specific facts due to the person’s intent or lack of its content (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2928, May 22, 1998; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002, etc.).

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the records, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, after conducting a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff, revealed that the funds for acquiring each real estate of this case in the name of the plaintiff came from the non-party who is the husband of the plaintiff. At the time of the tax investigation, the plaintiff signed and sealed the confirmation document stating that "I confirm that I will acquire real estate by receiving a donation of funds from the husband from the non-party as the result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office's investigation with respect to the above person's husband." The confirmation document contains detailed descriptions such as "date of donation", "donation amount", "donation fund withdrawal place", "beneficiary", and "the place of use after receipt," which are the basis of the disposition of this case. At the time,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Plaintiff was donated the acquisition fund of each real estate of this case from the Nonparty on the ground that, although there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the purchase fund of each real estate of this case was appropriated from the money owned by the Nonparty, the husband of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Nonparty trusted the real estate of this case with the sole fact, and the evidence of the judgment alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a title trust contract on each real estate of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and there is no other

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff acquired each of the real estate of this case by receiving a donation from the non-party at the time of the tax investigation and signed and sealed a letter of confirmation of the fact that the plaintiff acquired each of the real estate of this case.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to marital separation and title trust as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)