Whether it is proved that the trustee did not have the purpose of tax avoidance if the trustee did not obtain economic benefits from the truster (negative)

In the case of title trust, if the purpose of tax avoidance was not achieved, the claimant should be proved by the person, and it is not proved that the title trustee merely obtained economic benefits from the title truster, which was the purpose of tax avoidance.

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

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2618 decided Sep. 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 910) 89Nu4857 decided Mar. 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 909)

Fr. Worris

Head of Maritime Affairs Office

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu1223 delivered on April 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. The court below is just and correct to recognize that the actual owner of the land of this case is the non-party who is the plaintiff's birth, and the plaintiff is entrusted with only the registered name, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of burden of proof or by

2. The legal fiction of gift under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act does not apply when the title trust was made without the purpose of tax avoidance, as otherwise alleged in the theory of lawsuit.

However, as to whether there was no purpose of tax avoidance in this case, the claimant's assertion must be proved by the person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2618, Sept. 12, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4857, Mar. 13, 1990). It cannot be said that the title trustee merely verified that there was no objective of tax avoidance because the title trustee had obtained economic benefits from the title truster. In the same regard, the application of the deemed donation provision of the above Act to the same purport is not proved to have been aimed at tax avoidance unless the court below proves that there was no objective of tax avoidance.

3. All arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)