Whether Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act on the deemed donation of title trust goes against the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation, but Article 3(1) of the same Act provides special provisions, the preferential application of the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes is excluded pursuant to Article 3(1) of the same Act, and Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act does not conflict with the Framework Act on National Taxes as a superior corporation and does not violate the principle of no taxation without law under Article 59 of the Constitution.

Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 59 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2663 delivered on March 14, 1989

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1184 delivered on January 19, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation, while Article 3(1) of the same Act provides for special provisions on Article 14 of the same Act, if any tax-related Act provides for special provisions on Article 14 of the same Act, the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be applied, thereby excluding preferential application of the said provisions. As such, Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in the property requiring the transfer of rights or the registration, registration, transfer of title, etc., the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated 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, Article 32-2 of the same Act does not violate the Framework Act on National Taxes, as well as Article 59 of the Constitution.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the misapprehension of the principle of substantial taxation, or the omission of judgment, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit.

2. In addition, according to the records, the court below's decision that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1, the representative director of the non-party 1 company of the non-party 1, at the time of the increase of the capital, arbitrarily accepted the shares of this case in the name of the plaintiff and entered the name of the plaintiff in the register of shareholders without any intention contact with the plaintiff (the non-party 1, a director of the above non-party company and the chief of the general affairs division, immediately after the increase of the capital of this case), and there is no evidence to support this. There is no

3. 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 Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)