Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. After the death on December 30, 2003 by Lee O, who is the husband of the plaintiff Park O and the father of the other plaintiffs, the plaintiffs reported on June 29, 2004 the inheritance tax base (the inheritance value) as KRW 1,603,390,793, and the inheritance tax payable as KRW 62,186,753, and paid it.

B. The defendant shall investigate the inheritance tax of the plaintiffs, and ① the plaintiffs report their inheritance tax.

27,622,00 won is less than 228,930,00 won among the financial assets of the inheritee and 235,000 won among the property disposed of within 2 years from the commencement of the inheritance, and 235,000 won is deemed to have been donated in advance to the Plaintiff Extraordinary. 2. Then, 437,678,694 won was added from the inherited property to the Plaintiff Extraordinary on July 2, 2005 by adding the aggregate of KRW 929,230,694 to the inheritance tax and the inheritance tax amount of KRW 1,29,230,00 among the financial assets of the inheritee, and the sum of KRW 235,00,00 among the property disposed of within 2 years from the commencement of the inheritance. < Amended by Act No. 7614, Jul. 24, 2005; Act No. 4376, Mar. 46, 2005; Act No. 393634,47,497, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1-3 Evidence, Eul 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Cumulative loss, capital erosion, etc. without any hospitalization or business activities other than mining concession fees;

O In any way, the instant case is not capable of repaying the debt of the instant provisional collection.

The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which imposed inheritance tax by including the claim of this case, is unlawful within the scope of inheritance tax corresponding to the claim of this case, since there is no possibility of recovery, O made a report on discontinuance of business on March 10, 2006, and the liquidation procedure is in progress. Even if liquidation is conducted, there is no money that the Plaintiffs, who are shareholders, receive dividends from liquidation income. Thus, even though the claim of this case does not fall under the scope of inherited property because there is no legal or factual value, it is not included in the scope of inherited property. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful within the scope of inheritance tax corresponding to the claim of this case. As such, the portion exceeding KRW 45,958,442 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 83,95,69,633 of each inheritance tax imposed by EO, EO, EO, EO, and EO should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(1) Where any inherited property falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date of commencing an inheritance due to an inheritance, the inheritance tax shall be levied on such inherited property, as prescribed by this Act:

1. In the case of the death of a person who has established a domicile in the Republic of Korea or has established a temporary domicile in the Republic of Korea for not less than one year (hereinafter referred to as the "resident; hereinafter the same shall apply), all of the resident's inherited property (including property bequeathed by the decedent and donated property

Article 7 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(1) The inherited property under Article 1 shall include the property belonging to the inheritee, which is all articles having economic value capable of realization into money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The MOO owns a tin mining right (mining concession) registered in its name, and shares.

The company's OO('O') tried to lease the mining right, since the OO could not enter into a lease contract with an individual who is not a corporation, the OO established the O and entered into a lease contract for the mining right with the OO first, and the OO entered into a sub-lease contract with the 400,000 won per light deposit and the 60,000 won per light light deposit in the name of the OO, from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2008, and the O managed the light royalty income received from the O.

(2) For the year 2003,O shall have the revenue of KRW 11,890,740 from the mining fees.

The management is the whole business (265,628 won is the depreciation cost of lighting facilities), sales expenses and management expenses 27,51,861 won has been treated as the provisional payment of the net OO's expenses for the business. The annual sales expenses exceeded the sales profit and 15,927,738 won in the case of 2003, and the cumulative loss has been accumulated until the commencement of the business.

(3) In the case of 2003,O shall include assets and fixed assets with assets. 13,164,37

The capital of 50,000,000 won was 425,535,629 won in capital.

(4) After the death of the deceased, the representative director of the OO shall be appointed by the plaintiff Lee O as the representative director of the OO.

The contract was concluded for the change of the director's O and the remaining period.

(5) On December 31, 2003, after the death of the deceased EOO, the Plaintiffs exempted the instant provisional collection obligations.

In addition, in March 2006, the O reported changes in the tax base and tax amount in 2003 and 2004.

(6) The OO shall be dissolved by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on January 24, 2006, and completed the registration of dissolution on January 27, 2006.

In addition, after filing a report on closure of business on March 10, 2006, the completion of liquidation on April 8, 2006 and completed the registration of closure on April 11, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4-9, Gap evidence No. 13-21, witness O's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the OO's cumulative loss, capital erosion, etc. at the time of the commencement of the inheritance

Even if there was an intention to continue to operate a mining concession business, in light of the fact that the OO continued to operate the business as the representative director of the OO even after the death of the OO, and that the OO was not due to default or bankruptcy, it shall be deemed that the OO had an intention to continue to operate a mining lease business, and that part of the O's claims for the 13,164,37 won remain as the O's assets at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and thus, it shall not be deemed that there was no property value of the O's claims for the 13,167 won.

In addition, even if the plaintiffs were unable to fully recover the claim for the provisional payment from OO, and the liquidation income was not distributed under the liquidation procedure, such circumstance is merely a circumstance after the commencement of the inheritance, and such circumstance alone alone is insufficient to recover the claim for the provisional payment from the time of commencement of the inheritance.

In addition, as seen above, it cannot be deemed impossible for the plaintiffs to recover the provisional collection obligation of the OO after the commencement of the inheritance, since the plaintiffs had been exempted from the provisional collection obligation of the OO, it was not recovered and the distribution was not made in the liquidation procedure, and since the provisional collection claim of this case was impossible to recover from the beginning, it is not impossible to recover.

However, as seen above, it may be deemed that part of the claim for provisional deposit in this case was in an impossible condition at the time of commencement of inheritance due to cumulative loss, capital erosion, etc. ofO. Thus, the entire claim for provisional deposit in this case shall not be included in inherited property, the amount of the claim assessed to the extent possible, and the appraised amount thereof shall be included in inherited property. The appraised amount may be calculated by multiplying the assets at the time of commencement of inheritance by the ratio of the amount of the claim for provisional deposit in this case to the total amount of the claim. Accordingly, the appraised amount of KRW 437,678,694 to KRW 438,70,006 shall be multiplied by the ratio of the total amount of the claim for provisional deposit in 13,133,729 (t) at the time of commencement of inheritance, if the assessed amount of the claim for provisional deposit in this case shall be less than KRW 137,164,377.

Therefore, in excess of 13,133,729 won, the remaining 424,54,965 won shall be deemed as property value, and the defendant's disposition of this case imposing inheritance tax by including it in the value of inherited property is unlawful. The plaintiffs' assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition.

(2) Furthermore, as regards the legitimate tax amount, the column for “justifiable tax amount” in the annexed sheet 1 for the calculation of the tax amount.

As indicated in the above, the total amount of inheritance tax is KRW 134,270,256, and the amount of tax by inheritor is identical to the amount of tax by inheritor’s heir’s account statement by Attached 2. Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 44,756,752, out of the amount of imposition of KRW 83,954,447, which was imposed against Plaintiff’s Extraordinary among the disposition of this case, exceeds KRW 44,756,752, and exceeds KRW 29,837,834, respectively, of the amount of imposition of KRW 5,969,63,00,000 for each of the disposition of imposition of KRW 5,969,633, and exceeds KRW 29,837,834 of the amount of imposition of KRW 83,954,447, among the disposition of this case, the portion of imposition of KRW 85,958,447, and KRW 45,93636,963636,9636,96,396.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted for all reasons.