(a) the meaning of Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is a provision on deemed donation;

(b) Purport of Article 29-2 (4) of the Inheritance Tax Act;

A. Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act should be construed as a provision that a donation shall be deemed to have been made when there is no substantial donation between the actual owner and the nominal owner, or a trust is established, or it is merely merely a title trust or a registration is made between the actual owners.

B. The purport of Article 29-2(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not to exempt the donee from liability to pay gift tax or to treat the donee as non-taxation, but to the effect that when the donee returns or donates the donated property to the donor again after the donee received a donation of property, gift tax shall not be levied on the return or donation.

Articles 32-2(1) and 29-2(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 decided Oct. 14, 1986; 85Nu1001 decided Mar. 10, 1987; 86Nu486 decided Apr. 28, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu332 delivered on February 6, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff newly constructed the building of this case under the name of the non-party, the registration of preservation of ownership on October 29, 1984 with respect to the above building was again made under the name of the non-party, and then the registration of ownership transfer was again made under the name of the plaintiff, pursuant to Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, the actual owner shall be deemed to have made a donation to the nominal owner on the date registration, etc. was made under the name of the non-party, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the actual owner and the nominal owner are not the one who were registered under the title of the non-party. Thus, the provision on deemed donation does not constitute a non-party donation under the premise that the non-party donation should not be deemed to have been made again under the name of the non-party, or that the non-party donation should not be deemed to have been made again under the name of the non-party, the title holder and the real owner of this case.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below by the Health Institute is acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of litigation.

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 Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)