Donation of title trust of real estate

It is difficult to recognize that the transfer registration of real estate ownership in the future by the plaintiff was due to the unavoidable circumstances, such as that it was not for the purpose of avoiding gift tax by concealing gift, but for the purpose of avoiding the creditor's execution.

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

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed. 2. Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On September 30, 1988, the Seoul ○○○-dong 1432 61 to 61 to 205.3 square meters on the land and 473.69 square meters on the land (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) of the Seoul ○○ District Court received ○○○○○ Office on September 19, 198 on the ground of sale and purchase on September 19, 198, the registration of transfer of ownership of 1/10 on the name of △△△△△△△△, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs was entrusted to the plaintiffs only by the actual owner of the real property of this case. The defendant does not have any dispute between the parties concerned over the disposition of imposition of the same disposition of imposition as to the property in the name of a third party as provided in Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant taxation disposition is lawful on the grounds of the aforementioned disposition and relevant statutes. The Plaintiffs asserted that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiffs on the instant real estate was unlawful, since Kim○-○ leased the Plaintiff’s ○○ Private Teaching Institute to Nonparty ○○-do, which was owned by Nonparty 1, and that the said Jeju-do waterworks was made in order to avoid executing the said ○○○-owned property, and the creditors were merely carried out in order to avoid enforcing the said ○-owned property, and thus, the instant taxation disposition by applying Article 32-2

3. Therefore, according to Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 190), if the de facto owner and the nominal owner are different with respect to the above real estate subject to the transfer or exercise of rights, it shall be deemed that the de facto owner have donated the above real estate to the nominal owner, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The legislative intent of this provision is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system by concealing the above property, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the transferor refused to transfer the registration to the de facto owner, or transfer the above real estate to the de facto owner for the purpose of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s transfer of the above real estate for the purpose of ○○○○○○○○’s sale of the above real estate for the purpose of 100,000,000 won, for which evidence for the above 70,000 square meters No. 127, supra, it shall be interpreted as donation No. 9 and No. 271.

4) If so, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case that the plaintiffs deemed that the real estate of this case was donated by the non-party Kim ○○ as a donation of each of the above shares is legitimate, so the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking its revocation is without merit, and it is dismissed as per Disposition