The case holding that as a temporary title trust, regulations on deemed donation cannot be applied because there is no purpose of tax avoidance.

In a case where Party A purchased the instant land, which is farmland, and attempted to donate to Party A, but it was inevitable to obtain certification of farmland trade since six months have not elapsed since Party A transferred his/her resident registration to the land location, and Party A’s six months have elapsed since Party A transferred his/her resident registration, and Party A voluntarily paid gift tax after obtaining the certificate of farmland trade and completing the registration of ownership transfer in his/her name, if Party A voluntarily paid the gift tax, the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name is apparent to have been made without the purpose of tax avoidance, and thus, Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not applicable.

Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

Conciliation Exchange

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9045 delivered on April 11, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act on a deemed donation was not applied where it was obvious that the actual owner and the nominal owner were different due to the reasons such as the lack of tax avoidance purpose, due to the restriction under the positive law, etc., and determined that, at the time when the non-party Cho Young-ho purchased the land of this case as farmland and intended to donate it to the non-party Haak, who is a son, and Cho Jong-ho, it was difficult to obtain a certificate of farmland sale because the above adjustment, Cho Ho-ho was the six-year type of the above adjustment, Cho Ho-ho's title was entrusted to the plaintiff, who was the six-year type of the above adjustment, Cho Ho-ho's title, and completed the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer to the above title was made voluntarily, and thus, it cannot be applied to the above provision of property sale without any tax avoidance purpose.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the fact-finding and legal judgment are acceptable, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation as to the fact-finding with the purpose of tax avoidance, such as the theory of litigation.

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 Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)