logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.05.31 2014두43905
증여세등부과처분취소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

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

Article 41-2(1) main text of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002 and Article 45-2(1) main text of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003) and Article 41-2(1) main text of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007) provide that “where the actual owner and the title holder are different in cases of property requiring a registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights, the value of such property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the date when it is registered, etc. as the title holder notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” Article 14 proviso of the same Act provides that “The same shall not apply to cases where property has been registered, etc. in another person’s name without any purpose of evading taxes.”

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found that there was a clear objective irrelevant to the tax avoidance to the extent that each of the instant title trust had no objective of tax avoidance.

Each of the instant dispositions was lawful on the ground that there is insufficient proof as to the fact that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or at the time of the title trust, and the nominal owner cannot avoid the application of the gift presumption provision on the sole ground that there was no tax avoidance purpose.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in finding facts, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or title trust.

arrow