In case where a real owner unilaterally registers regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, whether the provision of donation under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall apply (negative)

The provision on deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act shall apply in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner register in the future of the nominal owner under an agreement or communication. Therefore, the provision on deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

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

Plaintiff

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu99 delivered on November 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the court below's reasoning was examined, and the non-party 1, together with other creditors, lent 68,00,000 won in total to the non-party 2 (the share of the non-party 1 in the tea certificate and the security agreement) (the non-party 3's name is gold 16,00,000 won in the name of the creditor). In making a provisional registration of the transfer of ownership to the real estate in this case owned by the non-party 2, the non-party 1 registered as the right holder of the non-party 5 as the non-party 2's provisional registration with the non-party 5 as the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, as the plaintiff (the plaintiff's address omitted), after completing the principal registration of the transfer of ownership in his name and address on the register without any limit, and the above non-party 1, who was the plaintiff (the plaintiff), sold this real estate to the non-party 4, such as other co-owners.

Under the above circumstances, the court below concluded that the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have donated the ownership shares of the real estate of this case to the above non-party 1. The measures are also justifiable, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory. Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that in case where the title holder of a property requires the transfer of a right or the transfer of a title to its exercise, if the title holder is different, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated to the title holder on the date of the registration, etc. as the title holder notwithstanding the provision of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, although this provision applies to the case where the actual owner and the title holder make such registration under an agreement or communication, the above provision on the donation of gift cannot be adopted.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)