Whether the return of title due to the termination of title trust constitutes a donation under Article 34 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)

If the title of the property trusted in title is merely returned to the original owner’s name, it cannot be deemed as a donation under Article 34 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981).

Article 34 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 554 of the Civil Act; Articles 56 and 60 of the Trust Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu112 delivered on November 8, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the land of this case was registered in the ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay as if it were transferred from the non-party 1 to the plaintiff, the court below recognized the fact that the land was originally purchased by the plaintiff from the non-party 2, and was registered in trust under the above non-party 1, the husband of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but was merely cancelled the title trust and returned to the plaintiff's name

The court below's examination of the evidence of the above fact-finding based on the records reveals that there is no evidence violating the rules of evidence such as accepting the above recognition of the court below and making the decision of the value of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

According to Article 34 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), the value of the property transferred to a spouse, a lineal ascendant or descendant shall be deemed to have been donated to the transferee at the time of the transferor’s transfer of the property notwithstanding the fact that the transferee paid the price of the property. However, it is reasonable to view that the case where the title of the property trusted in title is merely returned to the original owner’s name as in this case, as in this case, does not fall under the above transfer. Thus, there is no argument that the property transferred to a spouse, a lineal ascendant or descendant, or a descendant should be deemed to

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)