(영문) 대법원 2017.12.13 2017두39419 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대법원 2017.12.13 2017두39419

증여세부과처분취소

Text

The judgment below

Among them, the portion of gift tax reverted to year 2009 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. The main text of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that “where the actual owner and the title holder are different with respect to property that requires a transfer or exercise of the right, the value of such property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the date when the actual owner is registered in the name of the title holder, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” Meanwhile, the main text of Article 45-2(2) provides that “where property is registered in the name of another person without any purpose of evading taxes, and the name of the actual owner is not registered in the name of the other person, it shall be presumed that there exists a purpose of tax avoidance.”

If it is recognized that the title trust was made on the grounds other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and it is merely a minor reduction of tax incidental to such title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that such title trust had the purpose of tax avoidance.

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance.

However, the nominal owner who bears the burden of proof was not related to the tax avoidance to the extent that he did not have the purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust, and there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or in the future.

참조조문

-국세기본법 제14조

-상속세 및 증여세법 제45조의2 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 5. 12. 선고 2004두7733 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2016.06.09 2013두23058

-광주지방법원 2018.10.04 2017구합12797

-대법원 2017. 05. 31. 선고 2014두43905 판결

-대법원 2017.05.31 2014두43905

-대법원 2017. 12. 13. 선고 2017두39419 판결