Right to impose gift tax on title trust without the purpose of tax avoidance;

In principle, the actual owner may be interpreted as the donation of the real estate to the nominal owner on the date of transfer of registration, but if it is apparent that the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the nominal owner due to any other circumstance without the purpose of tax avoidance, it is unlawful to levy gift tax

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5464 Decided December 22, 1989

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 210,579,410 and defense tax of KRW 38,287,160, which the Plaintiff made on October 17, 1985 to the Plaintiff on October 17, 1985, shall be revoked. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

In full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 (Duty Payment Notice), Gap evidence 2 (Business Registration Certificate), Gap evidence 11 (Business Registration Certificate), one to three evidence No. 12 (Business Registration Certificate), Gap evidence No. 13-1 to four evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 6-1 to seven evidence No. 6 (No. 6-7) and the whole purport of the oral argument in the testimony of the witness YO-2, the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party ○") shall be deemed to have purchased the land in accordance with the Inheritance Tax Act No. 1 to use it as the site for the building filling-in ELP, which he directly manages, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 purchased the land in accordance with the separate list of real estate and the statement No. 1 to transfer registration No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"), and made the transfer registration in the future, and it shall not be deemed that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were purchased in title trust with the plaintiff 182.7.7.

As to the allegation that the disposition of this case is lawful, the Plaintiff refused to transfer the registration of ownership to the non-party company (the non-party company) as to the land (the non-party company) in the annexed list of real estate and the statement column for transfer of registration (7) among the land in this case, and the non-party company under the Farmland Reform Act was unable to acquire the real estate (the category of the non-party company under the same Table). The disposition of this case is unlawful because the purpose of the disposition of this case is to avoid gift or tax evasion, the provisions of Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act can be interpreted as a donation of the real property to the Plaintiff on the date of transfer of the registration, but if it is obvious that the real owner and the title holder were different from the real owner in the future, it is unlawful to view that the transfer of ownership is to be a donation and to exclude the transfer registration of ownership to the non-party company (the non-party company's title trust) from the list of the non-party company's land in this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is revoked as unlawful and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.