(a) In applying Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the burden of proving that the registration has been made unilaterally regardless of the intention of the nominal owner;

B. Whether the provision on the constructive gift is applied in a case where the real estate was purchased under another person's name, but the registration of ownership transfer is not completed

(c) requirements for the reduction of the tax base and amount of duty imposed and collected on the taxpayer and taking effect.

A. Even in cases where the owner of a real estate is different from the actual owner on the registry, where the registration in the name of the actual owner has been made unilaterally by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the provisions on the constructive gift under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act may not be applicable, but in such cases, the fact that the registration has been made unilaterally by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner is the burden of proof

B. According to Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, even if a purchaser of real estate purchased real estate under another person's name by borrowing it from another person's name, so long as the purchaser did not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future, there is no room to apply the above provision

(c)a tax base and amount of duty imposed and collected on a taxpayer shall be corrected by the tax authority to determine the reduction and shall take effect only when the tax authority issues a tax notice to the taxpayer.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290 Delivered on October 14, 1986

Plaintiff

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu451 delivered on October 22, 1987

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Even in cases where the owner and the actual owner on the register of real estate are different, if the registration in the name of the actual owner has been made unilaterally by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the provision on the constructive gift under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act may not be applicable. However, in such cases, the fact that the registration was made unilaterally by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner is the burden of proof for the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu290, Oct. 14, 1986).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was made unilaterally by the non-party, who is the actual owner, regardless of the plaintiff's intention, on the land within 27 parcels of this case, regardless of the plaintiff's intention, and judged that the above land is deemed as being donated to the plaintiff who is the actual owner of the land from the non-party who is the actual owner of the land in accordance with Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. The above determination disposition of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the presumption of donation, or by misunderstanding the burden of proof.

With respect to the second ground:

According to Article 34-5 and the main text of Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the value of the gift tax for which a donee has not reported the gift tax shall be based on the market value at the time of the imposition of the gift tax, the disposition that the court below assessed the value of the gift tax of this case at the resale price near the time of imposition of the gift tax of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the appraisal of the value

The issue is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if the non-party only purchased some of the lots of land 27 parcels of this case under the name of the plaintiff, without completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, the non-party sold it to another (the original judgment is determined to be a part of the land, and it does not specifically determine what the part of the land is), the land can be deemed as having been donated to the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of Article 32-2 and Article 32-1 of the Inheritance Tax Act along with the land resold after completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff.

However, according to Article 32-2 and Article 32-1 of the above Inheritance Tax Act, in case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from each other with respect to property which requires the transfer or exercise of rights, registration, recording, transfer of title, etc. (hereinafter “registration, etc.”), the pertinent provision on deemed donation does not apply unless the purchaser of real estate purchases real estate under another person’s name in the name of the nominal owner, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that a donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is made to the land among the land on which the ownership transfer registration has not been made under the name of the plaintiff among the land on 27 parcels of this case, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below on this point is justified, and therefore, it cannot be reversed.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

The determination of the reduction of the tax base and amount of the tax imposed and collected on the taxpayer is effective only when the tax authority makes a determination of the reduction of the tax base and amount of the tax imposed and collected on the taxpayer and notifies the taxpayer of such determination by the tax payment notice. Thus, even if the Defendant made the determination of the reduction of the tax amount as stated in its holding after the tax disposition was duly determined by the court below, if the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the determination of the reduction of the tax base and amount, the tax disposition in this case was not yet made. Therefore, the judgment below in the same purport is just and there is no error of law

3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff's appeal is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part of the appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)