Whether it constitutes deemed donation by title trust or not.

In the name of the non-party company, there is a statutory limitation that cannot complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party company, and where the non-party company is not for speculation of the land in this case, the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 92,332,50 on May 29, 1992 against the plaintiff and KRW 16,787,720 on defense tax shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑 제1호증의 1, 2, 갑제2호증, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 갑제4호증의 1 내지 8, 갑 제5호증, 을 제1호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 ㅇㅇ산업개발주식회사(이하 소외회사라 한다)는 1986. 11. 11. 별지목록 기재 토지 8필지 합계 14,396평방미터(이하 이 사건 토지라 한다)를 전원주택사업용지로 매수한 후 같은 해 12. 13. 이 사건 토지에 대하여 원고 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마침으로써 원고에게 이를 명의신탁한 사실, 이에 피고는 원고의 이 사건 토지의 취득에 대하여 구상속세법 제32조의 2 제1항(1990. 12. 31. 법률 제4283호로 개정되기 이전의 것 이하 같다)을 적용하여 실질소유자인 소외회사가 조세를 회피할 목적으로 이 사건 토지를 명의신탁한 것으로 보아 1992. 5. 29. 원고에 대하여 주문 기재의 증여세 및 방위세를 부과, 고지(이하 이 사건 부과처분이라 한다)한 사실이 각 인정된다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff originally purchased the land of this case for the purpose of using it as the housing site for electric source. If such fact is known, the actual difficulty in purchasing the land is followed, and in the case of trading with the corporation, the owner shall pay transfer income tax according to the actual transaction price. In addition, since the land of this case is farmland before the land category and the name of the non-party company cannot be acquired in the name of the non-party company, the non-party company acquired the land of this case by lending the plaintiff's name, and there was no purpose of avoiding gift tax at all in trust with the plaintiff, and therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the non-party company acquired the land of this case for the purpose of speculation, and the acquisition of the land of this case should be deemed to have been acquired for the purpose of speculation, and the act of title trust with the plaintiff should be deemed to have an intention to avoid corporate tax, etc., and therefore, the disposition

B. Determination

Therefore, Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that in case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in the property which requires the transfer or exercise of rights, registration, change of title, etc., the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated to the nominal owner on the day when the registration, etc. is made to the nominal owner notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, in order to prevent abuse of the title trust system as a means of avoiding the gift tax, the above provision has the legislative intent so that there is an agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and accordingly the registration, etc. is made accordingly, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated the property to the nominal owner in principle. However, if it is evident that the actual owner and the nominal owner are differently from the actual owner due to the restrictions or similar

However, according to the evidence revealed above, the non-party company purchased the land of this case for the purpose of using it as the site for a house construction project on November 11, 1986, and when the ordinary construction company intends to purchase the land for a house construction project, the land owners are likely to increase the sale price, and according to the former Income Tax Act-related regulations, in the case of a transaction with a juristic person, the seller paid the transfer income tax according to the actual transaction price. Thus, in order to reduce the actual burden of the transfer income tax, the seller was able to directly register the transfer of ownership in the name of the juristic person. In addition, the land of this case cannot be acquired in the name of the non-party company, which is a juristic person, as its land category was all the land category, and thus, the land of this case was acquired in the name of

According to the above facts, the reason why the non-party company entrusts the land of this case in the name of the plaintiff is not to avoid gift tax by concealing the gift through the title trust system, but to the non-party company that is the actual owner, or there is an inevitable circumstance such as the legal restriction that cannot complete the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the non-party company that is a corporation, etc., and the non-party company is not the object of speculation of this case as asserted by the defendant, and even if the non-party company intended to avoid part of corporate tax in the title trust to the plaintiff, the provisions of the above former Inheritance Tax Act concerning the constructive gift cannot be applied. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case by applying the above constructive gift provision is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.