Whether Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall apply to cases where there is no legitimate transfer;

The purport of Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is that the value shall be deemed to be a donation only in the case of a lawful transfer by the intent of the transferor. Thus, although the transferor appears to have transferred the property to his spouse, or his lineal ascendants or descendants, the above provision may not apply in the case of registration that is invalid for the cause of transfer, such as in fact contrary to the intention of the transferor, or that it is invalid for lack of substantial cause.

Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Budget Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1402 delivered on December 7, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of the property transferred to his spouse, or lineal ascendants or descendants shall be deemed to have been donated to the assignee at the time of the transferor’s transfer of the property. The purport of Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is that the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated only in the case of a lawful transfer by the transferor according to the intention of the transferor. Thus, even though the transferor appears to have transferred the property to his spouse, or his lineal ascendants or descendants, if there is no legitimate transfer contrary to the intention of the transferor,

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the land of this case was originally owned by the non-party, who was its father (the address 1, 2, 3, and 4 omitted among the land of this case), the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the non-party's name as of December 1, 1979, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the land ( Address 5 omitted) under the non-party's name. The court below's decision that held that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the non-party's name as of December 20, 1979 on the ground that the non-party's claim for registration of ownership transfer was not made under the non-party's name and the non-party's name was not erroneous because the non-party's registration of ownership transfer was not based on the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's new name.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)