In case where a transferor refuses to transfer registration to a de facto owner, or is unable to transfer registration to a de facto owner in the future, etc., whether the transferor is deemed to have been donated due to a title trust (negative)

The legislative intent of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to conceal the fact of donation with respect to the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right, so if the transferor refuses to transfer the registration to the actual owner, or if the title is not changed for the purpose of evading gift tax by concealing the fact of donation, it shall not be deemed a donation unless the title of registration is changed for the purpose of evading gift tax.

Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5061 Delivered on October 16, 1990, 90Nu5078 Delivered on October 16, 1990

Kim Il-hun

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5464 Decided December 22, 1989

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1429 delivered on April 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

If the actual owner and the title holder are different under the provision of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the title holder on the date of transfer of registration: Provided, That the above provision is intended to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to conceal a gift with respect to the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right, and thus, the purport of the legislation is to prevent the abuse of the title trust system as a means to conceal a gift. Thus, the transfer of the title to the actual owner is not aimed at avoiding the gift by concealing the donation, but rather, if the transferor refuses the transfer of the title to the actual owner, or if there is a circumstance where the transfer cannot be made

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 corporation purchased each land of this case in order to use it as a site for the counter-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub] under its direct control by the plaintiff's proof, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under a title trust with the seller's transfer income tax to be borne by the seller, so the non-party company's representative director, but completed the registration of ownership transfer.

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 Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)