[1] Whether a title trust relationship is established where a real estate was sold to another person's name (affirmative)

[2] The person who bears the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in real estate title trust as an exception to deemed donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (=title holder)

[1] In the real estate auction procedure, a title trust relationship is established between a person who bears the cost and a person who lends the name when he/she purchased real estate with another person's name and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

[2] As an exception to deemed donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, the nominal owner shall prove that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in real estate title trust.

[1] Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 187 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 32-2 (1) (proviso) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 187 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 365), Supreme Court Decision 90Da12236 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 743) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11729 delivered on November 14, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 95Nu9174 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2898), Supreme Court Decision 99Du2192 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1818), Supreme Court Decision 9Du3030 delivered on December 24, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1818) / [3030 delivered on December 24, 199)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu13548 delivered on May 14, 2002

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

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

A. On August 23, 1993, the Plaintiff participated in the auction procedure for each of the instant real estate by jointly bearing the costs with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and received the decision to grant a successful bid under the Plaintiff’s sole name on February 28, 1994, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on June 21, 1995.

B. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Intervenor, on June 21, 1996, on the ground of the termination of title trust with respect to 1/2 shares among each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant co-ownership shares”) prior to the expiration of the grace period for real estate registration under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on June 21, 1995, on which the transfer registration of ownership was completed under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to each of the instant real estate pursuant to the main sentence of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996), deemed that the Intervenor donated the instant co-ownership to the Plaintiff; and (b) on December 3, 1999, issued the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff.

2. In the real estate auction procedure, a title trust relationship is established between a person who bears the price and a person who lends the name when the person who purchased real estate with another person's name and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu811, Dec. 22, 1987; 90Da1236, Jan. 15, 191, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the intervenor trusted the shares of this case to the plaintiff by purchasing each real estate of this case jointly with the plaintiff and the intervenor and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the plaintiff's sole name after obtaining the permission of auction, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the court's rulings cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and therefore there is no error in violation of the court'

3. Meanwhile, the court below's decision that the intervenor did not have any purpose of tax avoidance in title trust to the plaintiff is proper, and it is not erroneous in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and further, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case violates the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of tax equity. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal on this part cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne and so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)