A. Scope of application of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) concerning deemed donation

(b) The case holding that there was no purpose of evading gift tax by concealing the gift, since the registration of transfer of ownership between husband and wife was made regardless of the gift;

A. The provisions of Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) shall not apply in a case where, with respect to property requiring registration, etc., a gift tax is not avoided by concealing a donation from the actual owner to the different owner in the name of the nominal owner.

(b) The case holding that there was no purpose of evading gift tax by concealing the gift, since the registration of transfer of ownership between husband and wife was made regardless of the gift;

Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu24 delivered on July 22, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below fully affirms the disposition that recognized that the real estate of this case was acquired by Nonparty 1 as its own funds and transferred the ownership in the name of the plaintiff who is the wife, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Furthermore, even if the above non-party 1 acquired the real estate of this case and registered ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff who was the wife, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate of this case was merely registered in the name of the plaintiff because it was not persuasive, since it was not transferred for the purpose of evading gift tax, it cannot be applied to the plaintiff's assertion that Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) cannot be applied to the plaintiff's transfer of ownership of this case under the plaintiff's former Inheritance Tax Act, since the non-party 1 acquired the real estate of this case in the name of the plaintiff who was the wife, and registered the real estate of this case in the name of the plaintiff who was the plaintiff, because there was concerns about the disadvantage in the status of the above non-party, and since the plaintiff's claim that the status relationship of the plaintiff and the above non-party and the real estate of this case were owned by the plaintiff, the above non-party was legitimate by applying the provision of this case.

However, the above provision of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act is not applicable to the case where there is no purpose to avoid gift tax by concealing donations from the actual owner to the different owner in the property requiring registration. According to the various evidences (Evidence B through 23) recorded in the records of this case, the above non-party 1, who is an employee of the Korea Land Development Corporation, distributed the real estate across the country including this case to the non-party 2, who was in a relationship with his wife, for the purpose of long-term resale profits by using information and knowledge acquired at work place, etc., the purchaser and owner were in a relationship with his wife. The above non-party 1, who was in a relationship with his wife, did not transfer the above real estate to the non-party 1 for a short-term sale within one year prior to the taxation disposition of this case, and thus, it cannot be found that the transfer proceeds of this case directly received the transfer proceeds of this case to the non-party 1, who was in the name of the plaintiff 1, who was in a relationship with his wife.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision of the above donation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision of the above donation, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)