Whether Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall apply to cases where a de facto owner registers, etc. in the name of the nominal owner, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner (negative)

Even in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall apply only where the registration, etc. is made in the name of the nominal owner in accordance with an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner or with the consent of the nominal owner, or where the actual owner voluntarily registers, etc. in the name of the nominal owner irrespective

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

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 decided Oct. 14, 1986 (Gong1986,305) 85Nu955,956,957,958 decided Feb. 10, 1987 (Gong1987,454) 86Nu382 decided Feb. 10, 1987 (Gong1987,462)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9089 delivered on January 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not applicable, even in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, only when the registration, etc. is made in the name of the nominal owner in accordance with an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner or with the consent of the nominal owner, and that Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not applicable in cases where the actual owner voluntarily registers, etc. in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, and that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff concerning the instant real estate owned by the Nonparty may be

In light of the relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact-finding without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit in the court below. Thus, there is no reason to discuss

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)