When a housing site development project is implemented on the same day, the case holding that if a landowner title trust the ownership of the relevant land to many persons in order to expect that the right to sell one housing site shall be distributed for each owner of the housing site and to increase the number of the right to sell the housing site, if the ownership of the relevant land is held in trust with another person, it shall not be deemed donated by applying

When a housing site development project is carried out in one lot of land owned by a landowner, in order to expect that a right to sell a housing site should be distributed for each one person who owns the housing site, and to increase the number of the right to sell the housing site, the ownership in the title of the ownership should be transferred to several persons including the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and then the sale of the housing site is found to be unnecessary, and if the ownership in the name of the plaintiff is returned to his own name after returning the ownership transfer registration from the plaintiff et al., then the transfer of the ownership in the name of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been donated by applying Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 190).

Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu240 decided Nov. 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 120) 90Nu3942 decided Dec. 7, 1990 (Gong1991, 501) 90Nu8060 decided Apr. 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1398) 91Nu2663 decided May 10, 191 (Dong)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7632 delivered on January 23, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 32-2 (A) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that if the actual owner and the registered titleholder are different, the provisions which consider the actual owner as the donation of the property to the registered titleholder on the date of transfer of registration shall be in order to prevent abuse of the title trust system as a means to conceal the donation of the property which requires the transfer or exercise of the right. Thus, the purport of legislation lies in preventing the transfer of the title trust from being registered differently, not to avoid the gift tax by concealing the donation, but to avoid the transfer of the title, if the transferor refuses the transfer of the ownership to the actual owner or is unable to transfer the ownership in the future, or is clearly different from the purpose of tax avoidance. (See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4143, Oct. 10, 199; 90Nu240, Nov. 13, 1990).

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 Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)