In case where the title trust is terminated and the title of ownership is returned, whether it constitutes deemed donation under Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (negative)

In case where the title trust contract is terminated after the title trust contract is terminated and the title of ownership is returned, it cannot be viewed as a transfer of property under Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed as a donation under the above provision.

Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu95 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1343) 89Nu411 Decided September 12, 1969 (Gong1989, 1506) 91Nu13045 Decided June 12, 1992

Plaintiff

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu39 delivered on June 5, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In case where the title trust contract of a property was terminated after the title trust was made and the title of the property was returned, it cannot be viewed as a transfer of property under Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a donation under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13045 delivered on June 12, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu411 delivered on September 12, 1989; 87Nu95 delivered on July 7, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revoked the tax disposition of this case on the ground that the transfer of ownership or registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the non-party on June 16, 198 with respect to the real estate shares of this case under the name of the non-party on the ground that the transfer of ownership or registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the non-party on the grounds of the termination of trust or sale, but the real estate of this case was purchased or newly constructed at the original funds by the plaintiff, and that some shares were held in title trust to the above non-party, who was his wife, due to the procedure for the registration of land transaction or the name of the building permit, etc., and that the transfer of shares was merely returned to the name of the non-party upon the termination of such title trust contract. The court below's above fact-finding is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, and the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error in the theory of law.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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