logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1987. 2. 10. 선고 85누955,956,957,958 판결
[증여세부과처분취소][공1987.4.1.(797),454]
Main Issues

A. Whether the provision on constructive gift under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) applies to simple title trust

(b) Requirements for deeming it as a deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act;

Summary of Judgment

A. Since simple title trust cannot be deemed as a trust under the Trust Act, even if the fact of title trust was not registered, registered, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the Trust Act, it cannot be deemed as a donation pursuant to the provisions of Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981).

B. In order to be deemed a donation under Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, it is insufficient to say that there is a separate nominal owner other than the actual owner, and that a registration, etc. has been made in the name of the nominal owner, only when there is an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner or there exists any communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and that such registration, etc. is applied.

[Reference Provisions]

A. Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 3 of the Trust Act

Reference Cases

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu226 delivered on September 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu748 delivered on March 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 Delivered on October 14, 1986

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant-Appellant

The Head of Gangnam Tax Office et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu580, 588, 596, 628 decided October 18, 1985

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Presumption of donation stipulated in Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) means that where trust property is a trust property under Article 3 of the Trust Act, is not registered or recorded in the register of shareholders or bond register, or does not enter such trust property in the register of shareholders, it shall be deemed that the trust property is donated to the trustee. Since simple title trust cannot be deemed a trust under the Trust Act, even if the fact of title trust is not registered or registered under Article 3 of the Trust Act, it shall not be deemed a donation under the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu226, Sep. 10, 1985) and Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 1, 1982; Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act).

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party's shares registered in the name of the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 was entered before the amendment of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the shares registered in the name of the plaintiff 4 were recorded after the amendment of the Inheritance Tax Act. However, there is no evidence to find that each of the above registrations was made under the trust law, or it was made under an agreement with the non-party who is the plaintiff 4 and the actual owner, or communication with the non-party. Rather, the non-party did not evade taxes, or conceal the shares owned by the non-party as the chairperson of the so-called Fame Group, and did not know that the shares were owned by the non-party 2's shares were owned under the name of the above plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 3's executives or relatives, and it is not clear that all of the above facts were to be found that the non-party's shares were disposed of in the name of the above plaintiff 2's shares without the plaintiff 3's consent or permission. Accordingly, it is not acceptable that the above plaintiff 12900 shares shares were legitimately and the above.

3. 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 judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문