Park Jong-chul et al. (Attorney Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1234 Decided December 22, 1989

1. The imposition of KRW 11,80,950, KRW 2,376,190, and KRW 712,840, and KRW 10,825,620, KRW 165,120, and KRW 649,530, and KRW 12,617, KRW 290, KRW 2,523, KRW 450, and KRW 757, and KRW 030, which were imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s YMMM on June 16, 1986, shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On June 16, 1986, the Defendant assessed the price of each of the above real estate under the name of the above Article 2-1 to 8-2 of this Decree on the ground that there was no dispute between the parties concerned, and the list of the above real estate under the same Article-1 to 3-2 of this Decree on the ground that the above provision of subparagraph 1 to 4-2 of this Article did not exist any dispute, and that the list of the above real estate was owned by the non-party 1 to 4-2 of this case on the ground that the above provision of subparagraph 1 to 5 of this Article was not applicable, and that the list of the non-party 2 of this case was not owned by the non-party 1 to 4-2 of this case on the ground that each of the above provision of subparagraph 5-1 to 5 of this Article was not owned by the non-party 2 of this Article, and that the list of the above real estate was not owned by the non-party 1 to 4-2 of this case on the ground that the above provision was not owned by the non-party 1 to 97.2 of this case.

As to the allegation that each of the above real estate was lawful, the plaintiffs did not receive a donation of each of the above real estate from the above Seoul Partition, and since each of the above real estate cannot be registered for ownership transfer under the name of Seoul Partition under the Farmland Reform Act as farmland-related relationship, each of the above real estate was registered for title trust to the plaintiffs, and thus, each of the above dispositions of this case was unlawful. Thus, the provisions of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act can be interpreted as a donation to the real owner on the date of transfer of registration, in principle, because it is obvious that the real owner and the title holder would be different from each of the above real estate under the actual law without any tax avoidance purpose, it is unlawful to levy gift tax on each of the above real estate under the name of the above 8-1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant real estate purchased by the above Seoul can be registered for ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiffs, not for the purpose of tax avoidance, since it was conducted under the name of the above Seoul can not be registered for ownership transfer of each of the above real estate under the name of the incorporated association, due to the limitation of substantial law, which cannot be registered for ownership transfer. Therefore, as to each of the instant real estate, the fact that the registration for ownership transfer was made in the future of the plaintiffs, the above Seoul can be deemed to have been donated to the plaintiffs and the above Seoul

In addition, the defendant should be deemed to have avoided taxes, such as acquisition tax, property tax, land, and multi-owned tax, etc., which are subject to heavy taxation under the Local Tax Act on the land for non-business use of a corporation. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is lawful. However, the above Seoul can not be registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the above Seoul can not be registered for the transfer of ownership of each of the above real estate under the name of the above Seoul can not be registered for the transfer of ownership under the positive law, which is an incorporated association, and not for the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is groundless.

Therefore, since each disposition of this case is unlawful, it is revoked and the total costs of litigation are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-sicker