(a) Legislative intent and subject matter of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act;

(b) The case holding that there was no purpose of evading gift tax on the land acquired by a foreign-invested enterprise in the name of an individual representative director;

A. The legislative intent of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to avoid gift tax with respect to the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right to transfer or exercise of the right. Thus, if the title trust system is not intended to avoid gift tax by concealing the title of the registration, etc., but rather because of statutory restrictions or other similar inevitable circumstances, it shall not be deemed a donation.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the disposition imposing gift tax is legitimate on the ground that it is not sufficient to conclude that there was no tax avoidance purpose, on the ground that the acquisition of land by a foreign-invested company was made in the name of the representative director in the name of an individual representative director, because it was due to restrictions on relevant laws, such as permission for farmland conversion and restriction on land acquisition by a foreign-invested

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4383 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2914) 92Nu17754 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1321), and 93Nu20900 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1127)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu21790 delivered on April 26, 1994

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

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the land of this case between January 5, 198 and February 19 of the same year, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer registration under its name with respect to the land of this case from January 5, 198 to February 19 of the same year, the court below determined that Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) applied the provision of Article 32-2 (1) of the same Act to determine whether the disposition imposing gift tax and defense tax on the Plaintiff on October 1, 1992 was unlawful, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the title trust system as a means of tax avoidance for the property requiring the transfer or exercise of rights, and thus, the above provision is not applicable to the case where the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case to the actual owner and title holder without the purpose of tax avoidance, and that the Plaintiff did not purchase the land of this case for sale without the title trust agreement.

2. However, the above provision of Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is intended to prevent the abuse of the title trust system by concealing the gift in the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right to acquire the above right. Thus, the purport of the legislation is to avoid gift tax by concealing the title of the property. If it becomes possible to avoid gift tax by means of statutory restrictions or other similar inevitable circumstances, it shall not be deemed as gift (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3956, Mar. 10, 1992; 92Nu1754, Mar. 23, 1993; 92Nu17754, Jun. 1, 198, the non-party company was still holding the land in the name of the non-party 1 corporation, which was a Japanese corporation, and the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation were not allowed to purchase the land in the name of the plaintiff 1 corporation to acquire the land under its own name, including the remaining forest and field.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act and by failing to properly examine or decide the plaintiff's assertion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. 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 with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)