[1] In a case where an agreement is acknowledged different from the content of the disposal document, whether the probative value of the disposal document and the principle of free evaluation of evidence is applied (affirmative)

[2] Whether a title trust relationship is established by an implied agreement (affirmative) and the application of private autonomy to the content of the internal legal relationship

[3] The case holding that even if a taxpayer reported to the tax authority as if he purchased real estate, and later asserted that he was trusted in trust in the subsequent litigation, it does not violate the principle of good faith

[1] As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even if a disposal document is a disposal document, if there is an express or implied agreement different from that of the content, facts different from that of the content may be recognized. In interpreting the legal act of the originator, the court may determine it by free evaluation of evidence to the extent that it does not violate the empirical rules and logical rules.

[2] The title trust relationship is not necessarily established by an express contract between the truster and the trustee, but can also be established by an implied agreement. Even if one of the parties is a juristic person, it does not change. In general, in the title trust, the internal legal relationship between the truster and the trustee is to have only the title holder on the public register while holding, managing and benefiting from the ownership of the subject matter, and to have only the title holder on the public register as the trustee. However, the internal legal relationship is established by a trust agreement between the truster and the trustee, so it may be determined differently in accordance with the content of the title trust agreement between the parties.

[3] The case holding that even if a taxpayer, as if he purchased real estate, filed a report and kept accounts with the tax authority, but reversed the title trust in the subsequent litigation, it does not violate the principle of trust and good faith

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 103 [title trust] and 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da8589 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 462), Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2152), Supreme Court Decision 95Da45125 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1510) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu139 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1287), Supreme Court Decision 86Da2653 delivered on May 12, 198 (Gong1987, 968), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu93939 delivered on December 13, 1993 (Gong194939, Dec. 14, 1993)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sejong Head of Tax Office (Attorney Choi Woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu30937 delivered on April 20, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

With respect to the first, second, and fourth points

As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the expression of intent according to the contents of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation or explanation. However, even if a disposal document is a disposal document, if there is an explicit or implied agreement different from the contents of the document, it may recognize facts different from the contents of the document, and in interpreting a legal act of the originator, it may be judged free in-depth evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418 delivered on July 12, 191, 191). Thus, in this case, the real estate sales contract (No. 6-3) stating that the non-party sells the real estate in this case to the Yeongdeungpo Building Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") has been prepared, but in light of the records, the court below is justified to have judged that the real estate in this case was trusted to the non-party company on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, the title trust relationship is not necessarily established by a specific contract between the truster and the trustee, but can also be established by an implied agreement, and even if one of the parties is a juristic person, it does not vary (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu139, Jul. 12, 1983). Generally, in the title trust relationship between the truster and the trustee, the truster holds the ownership of an object, manages and takes profits therefrom, and only the title in the public registry is the trustee. However, the internal legal relationship is established by a trust agreement between the truster and the trustee (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2653, May 12, 1987). Thus, the parties' contents of the title trust agreement between the truster and the trustee. Although the income from the lease of the real estate in this case was attributed to the non-party company, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the title trust agreement in light of the above legal principles, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below did not argue that a series of acts that the above non-party completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party company, but completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name during the liquidation of the non-party company constitutes wrongful calculation under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, on the contrary premise, the court below should be held that there is no reason to deny the judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion as wrongful calculation or not

On the fifth ground

Since it violates the principle of trust and good faith, the court may make an ex officio determination even without a party’s assertion. However, as determined by the court below, the above non-party, who is the deceased, sold the real estate of this case to the non-party company, as determined by the court below, shall prepare a real estate sales contract and submit it to the tax authority as if the non-party, who was the deceased, sold the real estate of this case to the non-party company, and the non-party company’s account book included part of the real estate of this case in the assets of this case as the accounts of the non-party company, and then completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of termination of title trust on the ground that the real estate of this case was trusted to the non-party company while the non-party company was liquidated. After that, even if the plaintiff asserted the same in the litigation about the taxation of this case, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation and the superior position to the taxpayer, and there is no violation of the principle of trust and good faith, such as the principle of no taxation without law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)