Suwon District Court 2006Guhap10260 (No. 30, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2006J 0168 (Law No. 12, 2006)

The legitimacy of the claim that the husband borrowed only the name of the wife while acquiring real property

Although her husband alleged that he acquired real estate and held title trust to her wife for convenience, her wife has borne a significant portion of the funds for the acquisition of real estate, it was time for her husband to obtain some funds from her husband at the time of the tax investigation, and other real estate is also owned in the name of her wife, it is deemed that her property is unique

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

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds Acquired Property)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 206,188,487 against the plaintiff on October 11, 2005 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this Court shall be, and the fourth through fifth (2) of the judgment of the first instance shall be the case.

Whether or not the entire real estate was trusted to the plaintiff is used in addition to the following parts, and it is like the entry of the first instance judgment, and it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(2) Whether the full ○○ was a title trust to the Plaintiff

The burden of proof as to the existence of the requirement of taxation should be demonstrated by the tax authority, but if the other party is presumed to have been subject to the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule, and when the real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of a single spouse in the marriage under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner, and if the fact that the source of the fund to acquire the real estate in question is one spouse other than the nominal owner, then the nominal owner may be presumed to have been donated the fund to the other spouse, and if the real estate in question is not a nominal trust between the other spouse, not the nominal owner, and the other spouse, it shall be presumed that the fund to acquire the real estate in question is not deemed to have been donated (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008). In addition, the presumption that one spouse acquired the real estate in the name of a single spouse in the marriage, and that the other spouse actually acquired the real property in question shall be presumed to have been 2070 years or more.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually bears the acquisition fund of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6 acquired in the name of the Plaintiff among the entire real estate of this case and 1/2 of the real estate No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "real estate in the name of the Plaintiff"), even if it is based on the health stand, and all the proof of the Plaintiff.

Rather, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 1, 2, 1, 2 of 3, 1 to 4 of 6, 300 million won, and 1 to 3 of 9, and 11 of 10, and 13 of 14 evidence 15 to 17 of 3, 300, 500, 1000, 3000, 500,0000, 7000, 3000,0000, and 5000,000,000,000,000,000,000 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

As seen above, the Plaintiff also bears a considerable portion of the acquisition fund for real estate under the Plaintiff’s name.

At the time of tax investigation, the plaintiff signed and sealed on the confirmation letter that he acquired the real estate of the plaintiff's name by receiving some funds from ○○○○○ at the time of tax investigation, and the plaintiff's assertion is also based on the plaintiff's assertion, and most of the plaintiff acquired real estate under the plaintiff's name and sold it, and the plaintiff currently owns the real estate in the name of the plaintiff without changing the title to the title truster's name as the title truster, and even up to now, it is now held in the name of the plaintiff without changing the title to the title truster's name as the title truster. In addition, it is difficult to view that the ○○○○○ completed bears part of the purchase price of the real estate under the plaintiff's name as the ownership of ○○○ completed, and it is difficult to view that the real estate under the plaintiff's name was in the name of the plaintiff only trusted for convenience, and there is no evidence to acknowledge such title trust.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is illegal, shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.