Whether the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is a gift

The imposition of gift tax is lawful on the ground that there is no evidence that the transfer registration of ownership on the land of this case was made as a debt security, or there is no evidence that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the registration of ownership transfer.

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

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As ○○○○○○○○○○○○ 1 through 3 (each notice), 1 through 3 (each certified copy of register), 5-1, 2, 6-1, 8-2, 2-1, 4-1, 2-2, 6-2, 2-1, 6-2, 2-2, 3-1, 4-2, 1-6, 3-1, 4-2, 1-6, 3-7, 1-7, 1-7, 3-1, 4-7, 3-1, 4-7, 9-1, 3-1, 4-2, 3-1, 3-7, 3-1, 4-2, 3-1, 3-1, 4, 1983-1, 3-2, 4, 1983, 3-2, and 9-1, 3-6, respectively, are different in the name of the Plaintiff’s title.

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff first, the plaintiff Cho-○ and Lee Dong-○ are mother-and-child, and they borrowed 30,000,000 won from the plaintiff Ansan○ and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate of this case in the collateral, so the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant applied Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act to the real estate of this case without any purpose of tax avoidance, and the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was made by applying Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Second, even if it is not so, the transfer registration of ownership was made before the plaintiff Ansan○○ was made on March 7, 1983. Thus, the tax claim of this case had already been extinguished on March 6, 198, and the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is an unlawful disposition that

Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property that requires the transfer, registration, change of title, etc. of the right, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner on the date on which the actual owner is registered as the nominal owner, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. If the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the nominal owner on the date on which the registration is made, it shall be deemed that the actual owner have donated the property to the nominal owner, but exceptionally, if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the nominal owner without any agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner without the purpose of tax avoidance, or if the registration, etc. in the name of the nominal owner have been made unilaterally without any specific reason, it shall be interpreted that the real owner and the nominal owner are not a gift. Furthermore, the exceptional circumstance of the Plaintiff shall be proved by the document stating that there was no reason to believe that the first objection to the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff at the last date for pleading.

Next, the plaintiff's second argument is examined, and it is reasonable to see that the time of acquisition of property by donation is the time of transfer of ownership, barring special circumstances. The extinctive prescription of the gift tax is to run from the time when the registration of transfer of ownership is completed to the day after six months from the date when the period of report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act was completed, and five years have not passed from the day after the date when six months have elapsed from March 7, 1983, registered in the name of the plaintiff Ansan-○○, and it is apparent that the tax disposition in the instant case on March 17, 198, which was made on March 17, 198, is to be done before the completion of the prescription. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the starting date of the above extinction prescription was March 7, 1983, and that the taxation disposition in this case has expired.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate in light of each evidence admitted by a party member, and the plaintiffs' claim of this case is without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.