A. Purport of Article 32-2(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act

(b) the burden of proof that the registration has been made unilaterally regardless of the intention of the person liable for registration.

(c) Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the ground of cancellation of trust after the disposition of gift tax imposition, whether the cause of taxation is extinguished;

A. The purport of Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is that, insofar as there is an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner or if such registration has been made due to communication, it shall be deemed that there is no substantial donation among them, or that there is no trust under the Trust Act, or a simple title trust is made, or that there is a donation when such registration is made, etc., so if the registration, etc. is made unilaterally regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the provision of

(b) the fact that the registration has been made unilaterally by the de facto owner regardless of the intention of the de facto holder must be demonstrated by the claimant.

C. Even if a property subject to gift tax has been registered for transfer of ownership on the ground of cancellation of trust with the intention to return it to the real owner after the taxation disposition, there is no change in the grounds for taxation due to the constructive gift to the nominal owner pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

(a) Article 32-2(1)/B of the Inheritance Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu382 delivered on February 10, 1987, 86Nu82 delivered on February 24, 1987, and 85Nu1001 delivered on March 10, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1360 delivered on November 26, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purport of Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act that, in case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different with respect to property which requires the transfer, registration, change of title, etc. of rights, the actual owner and the nominal owner shall be deemed to have donated such property to the nominal owner on the date of registration, etc., notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if there is an agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner, or so long as such registration has been made on the date of such an agreement or communication between the nominal owner and the nominal owner, it shall be deemed that there is no substantial donation among them, or a donation is made when a trust under the Trust Act is established, or a simple title trust is merely made, or a registration is made, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu363, Feb. 24, 1987). Meanwhile, if the registration is unilaterally made regardless of the intention of the nominal owner, the provision of the above Act cannot be applied

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not have sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on the land of this case was made for the purpose of returning the property to the actual owner after the taxation was made, and that it was made unilaterally by Nonparty 1, the actual owner regardless of the plaintiff's intention, and then rejected it lawfully. The land of this case is deemed to have been donated from the actual owner under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act to the plaintiff who is the actual owner. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the provision on the constructive gift of the Inheritance Tax Act, and even if the property subject to the gift tax of this case was made for the purpose of returning the property to the actual owner after the taxation was made, there is no change in the grounds for taxation due to the constructive gift of the registration owner under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and such interpretation is not extinguished, and such interpretation is not contrary to Article 22

All arguments are groundless.

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 Jae-joon (Presiding Justice)