Whether the purchase of land is deemed a donation where the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in a single name from among the joint buyers for convenience (negative)

If two persons jointly purchase land and make a registration of ownership transfer under the sole name of one of them for convenience, the title trust held by one half of the remaining one person's equity to the title holder shall be deemed to have been made without any purpose of evading the gift tax. Therefore, the donation shall not be deemed to have been made by applying Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 190).

Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Do-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu18748 delivered on July 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

The so-called deemed donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1990) intends to prevent the title trust system from being abused as a means of abolition with respect to property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right. Thus, the purport of the legislation lies in preventing the transfer of the title trust system from being abused as a means of abolition. Thus, the registration name different from the registration name is not for the purpose of avoiding the gift by concealing the gift, but for the transferor to refuse the transfer of the registration to the actual owner, to transfer the registration in the future of the actual owner, and other similar cases where the purpose of tax avoidance is clearly different from the purpose of tax avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4143, Oct. 10, 1990). Thus, it is correct that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out the above provision in the judgment of the court below.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)