Purpose of tax avoidance

Since it is impossible to obtain the certificate of farmland sale, it is deemed that only temporarily entrusted the registration to the plaintiff, and therefore it is clear that it was made without the purpose of tax avoidance, so the above provision of the inheritance tax law cannot be applied to this.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 12,505,360 on the Plaintiff on October 5, 198 and its defense tax of KRW 2,273,70 shall be revoked. 2. The litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. The attached list, real estate recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") is purchased by the non-party 1 from the former owner, and the above non-party was the actual owner. The above non-party is the land of this case 6, such as entry in the attached list, as to the land of this case, 16 March 5, 1987; 4. 16 for the land of 3 or 5, 7 or 8; 6th May 21 of the same year for the land of this case as to the above non-party 6th class of the above non-party as to the land of this case, 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; the defendant deemed the above non-party to have donated the land of this case to the plaintiff; the taxable value of the land of this case to be transferred to the former owner and the above non-party 32,720; and the real owner of this case is not subject to the imposition of the inheritance tax and the imposition of the tax by the non-party 281.

2. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act, such as the above provision, and against this, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case in his intention to donate to the non-party Cho Jong-○ and Cho Jong-○, his children. The land of this case is farmland, and the above non-party did not meet the requirements for issuance of a certificate of farmland trade issued by the competent government office at the time of the farmland, and it does not constitute a title trust and registration for the plaintiff, and the disposition of this case, which applied the above provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act, is unlawful.

The above provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the Inheritance Tax Act is to be deemed not to apply to the case where it is apparent that the actual owner and the nominal owner were different in view of the substance over form principle, the spirit of tax justice, and the principle derived therefrom without any tax avoidance purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1234, Dec. 22, 1989, etc.). The above provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act had been signed for the purpose of preserving the ownership of the above land under the name of the non-party 1 through 8 (No. 6 of each copy of the register, No. 2 of the evidence No. 3, No. 1, 3 (each return and payment of gift tax), 2,4 (each decision), and No. 1, No. 3 (Property Decision) regarding the ownership transfer registration of the above land to the non-party 4 of this case for the purpose of preserving the ownership of the non-party 1’s ownership, which had not been registered after the above transfer.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is impossible to obtain the certificate of farmland sale under the name of the above non-party, and thus, it shall be deemed that only the registration was entrusted to the plaintiff, and it is clear that it was made without the purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, the above provision of the inheritance tax law shall not be applied to this case.

3. If so, the disposition of this case, based on the above provision of the Inheritance Tax Act, is illegal, and thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.