The burden of proving that the registration of the property requiring the transfer or exercise of rights is made without the consent of the nominal owner (=person in title)

With respect to property which requires the transfer or exercise of the right stipulated in Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, it shall be proved that the general act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, in case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different.

Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Kim Dong-dong Kim

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu788 delivered on May 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to property requiring the transfer or exercise of the right under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in cases where the actual owner and its nominal owner are different, the nominal owner shall prove that the registration, etc. to the nominal owner was made as a unilateral act of the real owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. (See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 delivered on October 14, 1986) In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the court below did not believe the evidence that the registration of transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff was made unilaterally by the said Nonparty without communication with the Plaintiff, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles in the process of fact-finding or judgment. Ultimately, the court below’s assertion cannot be accepted as it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)