The validity of a disposition imposing gift tax, which is taken by misunderstanding the husband's termination of title trust with respect to the wife.

In a case where the tax authority deemed that the transfer of ownership in the husband’s name concerning the real estate for which the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of his wife was the most likely to be terminated for the purpose of evading inheritance after the death of his wife, and thus imposed a gift tax, whether the above title trust was terminated is true or not, even if it was the most likely act, cannot be known before the tax authority’s investigation by the taxation data, and thus, even if the tax authority misleads the person who was the most likely act of the termination of the title trust, the defect cannot be deemed objectively apparent. Thus, the above disposition of imposing the gift

Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 1 (Administrative Dispositions and General Provisions)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu11751 delivered on May 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Since the inherent defect in the administrative disposition is serious, and the administrative disposition is considered to be null and void only when it is objectively apparent, it should be viewed that the taxation data which served as the basis for the taxation disposition should be accurately examined, but if it is possible to know the defect, the defect cannot be objectively apparent, and thus, it cannot be the ground for nullification of the taxation disposition.

According to the records, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the non-party, who is the plaintiff's wife, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's transfer of ownership in the above plaintiff's name is the pretending to be terminated in the name of the above non-party for the purpose of evading inheritance after the death of the above non-party, and it is recognized that the registration of title transfer in the name of the above plaintiff is not true, and thus, the disposition to impose the gift tax of this case was rendered. Thus, even if the tax authority's determination whether the above title trust termination is true, it cannot be known before the investigation is conducted by the taxation data of the tax authority. Thus, even if the defendant mis

In the above purport, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition imposing the gift tax of this case was not null and void as a matter of course, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for nullification, is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation

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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)