(a) The meaning of Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act as deemed donation;

(b) In applying Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the burden of proving that the registration has been made unilaterally regardless of the intention of the nominal owner;

A. The provision on deemed donation under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act refers to the purport that, inasmuch as there is an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner or the registration was made on the basis of communication, the donation shall be deemed to have been made when the title trust is impossible or when the registration was made between the actual owner and the nominal owner.

(b) In the case of paragraph (a), the evidence that the registration, etc. has been made unilaterally regardless of the intention of the nominal owner shall be made by the party asserting it.

Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu748 delivered on March 26, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu686 delivered on March 12, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 acquired four lots of land in this case located in Gyeonggi-si ( Address omitted), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the plaintiff's name from October 10, 1983 to November 8, 198 of the same year, the defendant deemed that the non-party 1, the real owner, was donated to the plaintiff on October 2, 1984, and that the disposition of gift tax and defense tax of this case was not disputed between the plaintiff on October 2, 1984. Based on the macro evidence, the non-party 1 purchased the land in this case and the wife of the above non-party 1 would use it as land for the management of children, but did not directly register the ownership transfer under its name due to the circumstances such as restrictions on farmland ownership transfer, etc., and the non-party 1, the plaintiff's actual owner of the above land, who completed the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff's name without obtaining prior consent or consent from the plaintiff.

Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act amended on December 31, 1981 provides that "if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property which requires a transfer or exercise of the right, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner on the date when the registration, etc. is made to the nominal owner, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes." This provision provides that as long as there is an agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner and the nominal owner, so long as such registration has been made, it shall be deemed that there is no substantial donation between them, that is, if there is no substantial donation between them, or if a trust is made under the Trust Act, or if it is merely merely a title trust or a registration has been made, it shall be interpreted that the donation has been made without Nonparty 2's consent to the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu748, Mar. 26, 1985).

However, according to the records, the above evidence No. 5 cited by the court below or the witness testimony of the non-party No. 1 is the purport that the non-party No. 5 purchased the land of this case and entrusted the registration under the name of the plaintiff to the plaintiff for convenience, and thus, the above registration was made under the agreement with the plaintiff (if the above registration was made without the plaintiff's intention, it shall be invalid for the cause). In addition, as to the disposition of imposing the gift tax of this case, the plaintiff raised an objection against the disposition of this case, request for examination and adjudgment, and the complaint of this case, as well as the above non-party No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 of this case's testimony, regardless of the plaintiff's intention, it can be found that the above registration was made under the above evidence No. 1, No. 2 and No. 2 of this case's testimony without the plaintiff's consent.

Therefore, the court below erred in understanding the contents of the evidence and erred in selecting evidence, thereby adversely affecting the judgment. Thus, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)