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

The legal fiction of donation provided for in Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) is applicable to a trust under the Trust Act, and it does not apply to a simple title trust.

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

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu396 Decided January 16, 1979; 82Nu121 Decided October 12, 1982; 82Nu121 Decided July 26, 1983; 83Nu192 Decided November 12, 1985; 85Nu423 Decided November 11, 1986; 85Nu798 Decided November 11, 1986; 86Nu116 (dong) Decided November 11, 1986; 86Nu116 (dong) (dong)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1324 delivered on September 2, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The deemed donation stipulated in Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) is applicable to a trust under the Trust Act, and the mere title trust is not applicable to a title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Nu396, Jan. 16, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu121, Oct. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu192, Jul. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu423, Nov. 12, 1985).

The court below's decision that the witness's testimony and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 are admitted as evidence, and that the list of shareholders and the change of holders of the share certificates of the ASEAN interest corporation in its holding is merely merely a title trust and it is not a trust under the Trust Act, and thus the provisions of Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act cannot be applied. Thus, the court below's decision is not acceptable since it attacks the judgment differently, and the Supreme Court's decision (Supreme Court Decision 70Nu22 delivered on March 31, 1970) is not related to Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent in this case.

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 Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)