Seoul High Court 2013Nu53075 ( March 23, 2014)

Seocho 2012west 3918 ( November 29, 2012)

It is reasonable to deem that real estate was purchased by Plaintiff A and thereafter donated to Plaintiff B, a child, after title trust.

(C) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s

Article 4-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Du40739 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA, EB

SP Director, Head of the PP Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu53075 Decided July 23, 2014

November 27, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal between Defendant SS Tax Office and Defendant SS Tax Office shall be borne by each party.

This response and the part arising between the Director of the PP Tax Office shall be borne by this response.

Of the indication of the parties in the judgment of the court below, the "Plaintiff No. Respondent, Appellant and Appellant" shall be deemed to be "Plaintiff No. Respondent, Appellant, Appellant and Appellant," the "Defendant PP Director, Appellant and Appellant" shall be deemed to be the "Defendant", and the "Defendant" shall be deemed to be the "Defendant SS Director," and the "Plaintiffs in Paragraph (b) of the appeal" shall be deemed to be the "Plaintiffs and Appellants," respectively.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, since the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act, and the judgment of the court below is correct because there is an obvious error in the judgment below.