National High Court 1996bu2183 ( December 13, 1996)
In light of the fact that ○○○○’s mother’s age was 22 years of age at the time of acquiring land on June 30, 75, and no evidentiary document was presented that the claimant’s age was acquired with the funds of the claimant at that time, and the judgment of termination of title trust related to the land is 00 won when the claimant’s mother claimed that the acquisition value of the land was 00 won when the claimant’s claim was filed, but it is not consistent with the claimant’s claim, it is difficult to recognize the claim’s place of claim
Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
I dismiss the appeal.
1. Summary of disposition;
The claimant was transferred ownership due to the termination of title trust by the mother's OOOO in Samcheon-do, Samcheon-do, OOOOOOO, preceding 1,312 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "sub-owned land") from OOO of the claimant. 8.26.
In the case of the land transaction at issue, the disposition agency did not recognize the termination of the title trust as the claimant's own funds at the time when the aboveOO was acquired from the OOO other than the claim 75 June 30, 75, and did not recognize the termination of the title trust, and determined and notified the claimant 26,035,80 won for the 93 year gift tax pursuant to Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act.
The claimant appealed against this and filed an appeal on June 26, 96.3.11.
2. Opinions of the applicant and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;
The key land was that the claimant was employed by the company from March 72 to April 74, 198 and collected by the claimant, together with the farmer's share of the plaintiff's own money (870,000 won). The claimant acquired the amount of money collected by the claimant (870,000 won) from April 6, 75, but the claimant was registered in the name of the mother's OO as a military service relationship, but the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the claimant who is the actual owner by the court decision on August 26, 93. In this case, it was unfair that the title trust was terminated and the ownership was returned to the company, and that taxation was made by deeming it a gift.
(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;
When the plaintiff's OOO acquired the land at issue on June 30, 75, the age of the claimant was 22 years of age at the time, and no evidentiary document was presented that the claimant acquired the land at the time, and in the case of the cancellation of title trust related to the land at the time of the judgment on title trust, the claimant's claim that the acquisition value of the land at issue is 20,000 won was claimed as 60,000 won in the case of appeal, and it is not consistent with the claimant's claim, therefore it is not reasonable to recognize the claim claim, and to impose tax on the claimant by deeming that the claimant's OO
3. Hearing and determination
(a) Points in dispute;
Whether the claimant's receipt of ownership transfer from the mother's OO of the disputed land constitutes a gift, or whether it falls under the ownership transfer due to the termination of title trust
(b) Related statutes;
Article 29-2 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that a person who acquired property through a third party donation and has a domicile in Korea at the time of donation shall pay gift tax.
C. Facts and determination
(1) If the claimant acquired the disputed land by reason of sale and purchase from OO outside claim 75 June 30, 75, the claimant filed a lawsuit for performance of ownership transfer registration claiming the termination of title trust against OOOO (the original district court's Jinju branch court's 93 group 6139) and won the claimant (the defendant's substitute position) in favor of the claimant (the plaintiff's substitute position). It is confirmed by a certified copy of the land in question, the court's judgment, etc. that ownership transfer from OO in the name of the claimant is confirmed.
(2) At the time of the claimant’s acquisition of the disputed land at issue on June 30, 75, the claimant’s 22 years of age is confirmed by the investigation data of the agency. At the time of the claimant’s acquisition of the disputed land in his/her own funds and the fact that the claimant’s acquisition of the land in his/her name and registration under the mother’s OO’s name is not presented, the credibility of the claimant’s claim is difficult to be recognized.
In fact, in the case of the disputed land, the claimant cannot be seen as the land which was trusted in the name of mother OO, and since the OO possessed for 18 years and it seems that it was donated to the claimant, the original disposition imposing gift tax is justified.
D. Since the petition for adjudication on this case is without merit, it shall be decided as ordered under Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.