logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2013. 01. 30. 선고 2012누2702 판결
상속을 원인으로 명의개서한 것은 명의신탁에 관한 의사의 합치가 있었다고 보기 어려움[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Busan District Court 201Guhap4474 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Case Number of the previous trial

Board of Audit and Inspection, 2011,0125 (No. 21, 2011)

Title

It is difficult to deem that the transfer of ownership due to inheritance was the agreement of the intention on title trust.

Summary

As long as it is inevitable for a person entrusted with title to transfer to his heir on the ground of inheritance due to the death of the person entrusted with title, and taking the form of inheritance, it is difficult to deem that there was a mutual agreement on a new title trust.

Cases

2012Nu2702 Revocation of imposition of gift tax

Plaintiff, Appellant

ChoA et al.

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Head of the Gold District Tax Office and one other

Judgment of the first instance court

Busan District Court Decision 201Guhap4474 Decided July 13, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

January 9, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

January 30, 2013

Text

1. All of the appeals by the Defendant mold are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) on July 1, 2010 by the director of the tax office of the Geum-gu Tax Office and the imposition of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) on the gift tax made on July 6, 2010 by the director of the tax office of the tax office of the Jin-gu Tax Office to Plaintiff HaB on July 6, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Advice for a judgment of the court of first instance;

In addition to adding the following, the court's reasoning for this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be added; and

A. Whether the title trust relationship is inherited

The Defendants asserts that, inasmuch as the title trust relationship is based on the mutual trust between a truster and a trustee, if a trustee dies, the performance of the contract is deemed to have occurred, and thus, it does not constitute an object of inheritance. However, even if the title trust relationship is based on mutual trust between a truster and a trustee, it has the characteristics of a legal act regarding property. As such, if a trustee dies, the title trust relationship remains in existence with the relevant property heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da35985, May 31, 196). Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the title trust relationship is not subject to inheritance is rejected.

B. Whether a new title trust agreement was concluded

The Defendants asserts to the effect that, at the time of entering the change of holders in the future of the Plaintiffs with respect to the same food stocks, the Plaintiffs prepared a division of inherited property agreement with each co-inheritors, and prepared a certificate of their personal seal impression, etc., and that a new title trust agreement should be deemed concluded between Kim E and the Plaintiffs. According to the results of the fact-finding on the FF food corporation at the trial of the Party, the Plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs prepared a division of inherited property agreement with each co-inheritors to transfer their shares in their names to the Plaintiffs in the future, and that the Plaintiff submitted a certified resident registration certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression of the Plaintiff HBB at the time. However, as long as it was inevitable for the Plaintiffs to transfer the shares in the name of FF food from KimE to their successors due to their respective death, it is difficult to view that the preparation and submission of the above documents was necessarily accompanied, and that there was a mutual agreement between Kim E and the Plaintiffs on new title trust. Accordingly, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion also cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are accepted on all grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals of the defendants are dismissed as they are without merit, and they are so decided as per Disposition.

arrow