2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 15, 2009, KimB (hereinafter referred to as "the decedent"), the plaintiff was deceased on August 15, 2009, and the deceased became the decedent's heir due to the waiver of inheritance by SungCC (the decedent's spouse), KimD, KimE (the decedent's lineal descendants), and the plaintiff, KimGG, and Kim H (the decedent's brothers and sisters), who are the third legal heir (the decedent's lineal descendants), and the third legal heir, and Kim H (the decedent's brothers and sisters).

B. On February 28, 2010, the Plaintiff calculated the value of the inherited property to the Defendant as KRW 000 [the value of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 + the value of the real estate listed in Paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter “instant building”) + the value of cash and deposit KRW 000 + the amount of the obligation + the amount of the obligation KRW 000 as shown in the attached Table 1, and filed each inheritance tax base by calculating the amount of the obligation as KRW 000 and the FF cost as listed in the attached Table 1.

(B) Table 1 omitted.

C. From November 19, 2010 to February 14, 2011, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff leased each of the above building underground and the first floor from the decedent, and that the second floor and the third floor and the second floor (the building without permission). However, the Plaintiff and the second unit of the decedent were in a special relationship and there is no evidentiary document regarding the payment of the deposit for lease except for the lease contract, and the Plaintiff notified each of the above 20.1 billion won to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (i) the amount higher than the amount deposited by the JJ and Kim H into the account of the decedent, and (ii) the amount higher than the amount deposited by the decedent into the account of the decedent, and (iii) the decedent deposited the highest J and Kim H into the account of the decedent, and (iv) it appears that the decedent paid more than the amount of the debt to the Kim H, and (ii) the Defendant notified each of the above 200.1 billion won to the Plaintiff, and (II) the obligation of the decedent 200.20.1 billion won to the loan obligation.2.

E. On August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Seoul Regional Tax Office on August 2, 201, and on August 25, 201, the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) from January 4, 1996 to August 25, 2011, the fact that the Plaintiff was operating the cosmetic retail business in the instant building was confirmed by computerized data of the National Tax Service; and (b) even if the Plaintiff was a woman of the inheritee, if the Plaintiff was using the first floor and underground of the instant building, it would be reasonable to deem that the corresponding rental deposit was paid as a matter of course; and (c) in view of the fact that the Plaintiff and II moved into the instant building on December 4, 200 and had been residing until now, it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to deny the lease deposit in its entirety, and that it was unreasonable for the Defendant to make a re-examination as well as the Defendant’s remaining tax base and tax amount prepared on May 23, 2005.

F. According to the above decision on October 25, 201, the defendant recognized 00 won of the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the plaintiff, and 00 won of the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the above 2000 won of the lease deposit for the plaintiff's 300th of the above 20th of the lease deposit for the above 20th of the building (the above 00th of the lease deposit for the plaintiff's 20th of the above 0th of the lease deposit for the above 0th of the lease deposit for the plaintiff's 20th of the previous 0th of the lease deposit for the plaintiff's 3rd of the 00th of the lease deposit for the plaintiff's 20th of the Seoul 200th of the lease deposit for the above 200th of the lease deposit for the plaintiff.

G. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 20, 201, but the request was dismissed on June 18, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, and 4, 1 through 7, 1 to 7, 1 and 2, 3, 1 through 5, 3, 5, and 5, 1 through 5, and 5, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff

The plaintiff, on January 4, 1996, leased the first floor and underground of the building of this case from the decedent to 'K', and reported the cosmetics retail business at 00 won, and the first floor and underground rent at the time of the application for business registration to 00 won, and when converting the rent into the deposit for lease, the total deposit for lease on the first floor and underground of the building of this case at the time of conversion into the deposit for lease shall be 00 won (=00 won + 000 won - 1%). The plaintiff increases the deposit for lease on April 25, 2003, and the amount of deposit for lease between the decedent and the decedent was 00,000 won, and at least 10,000 won of the building of this case at the time of the above conversion into the deposit for lease to 10,000 won, and at least 0,000,000 won of the average deposit for lease of this case at the time of the expiration of the lease period.

(ii) the obligation to return lease deposits to BB;

In the "written request for review and deliberation of the request for pre-assessment review", the defendant held that the third floor of the building of this case where this second floor is composed of three and five square meters without permission, and that 000 won (three:00 won for each house, and 000 won for each house: 00 won) as the lease deposit for this second floor is appropriate. According to the building ledger of this case, the defendant did not separately calculate the lease deposit for the third floor of the building of this case where the defendant recognized the lease deposit for the second floor of this case as 00 won without separately assessing the total floor area of the residential facilities of this case 9.12 square meters.

3) The obligation to make a loan to the highest JJ

In full view of the following facts: “The LJ shall deposit KRW 000 with the account of the inheritee on October 19, 2007 (including a new bank: 000), and the obligation of the inheritee to borrow KRW 000 on October 18, 2010 (Evidence A 5-2); the inheritee shall have previously borrowed money from the LJJ for the purpose of stock investment, living expenses, etc.; and on May 10, 2006, the inheritee shall repay KRW 000 from the inheritee until June 10, 2009; and it is unlawful for the Defendant to recognize the obligation of the inheritee to borrow money from the inheritee on the maximum amount of money of the inheritee on October 18, 2010.”

According to the fact-finding statement prepared on July 201 by the plaintiff, Kim H, and KimG, who are the wife of the inheritee, the sibling, and the defendant (Evidence 2-3 of the evidence A), the defendant's borrowing of KRW 000 as of May 30, 2010, stating that the amount of the debt owed by the inheritee to Kim H is 00 won, and that the decedent's borrowing of KRW 600 as of June 30, 2007 (Evidence 6-1 of the evidence A), "the borrowing of KRW 6), ",00 as of June 30, 2010, is determined and borrowed as of June 30, 2010, and the defendant's borrowing of KRW 6-2 of the loan certificate (Evidence 6-2 of the evidence A) issued on April 22, 2008 is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On January 4, 1996, the Plaintiff reported lease deposit amount of KRW 000, and monthly rent of KRW 000 upon filing an application for business registration with KK, and the type of business (types) cosmetics in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, where the instant building is located. However, there is no objective financial data that the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the decedent. The objective financial data verifying objective financial data is only that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 on June 3, 2002, and KRW 000 on June 29, 200 on June 3, 2002, and KRW 000 on June 29, 2002.

2) The Plaintiff’s global income tax return from 2002 to 2009 is as follows:

(B) Table 2 omitted.

3) According to the lease agreement dated May 20, 2003 between the decedent and BII (No. 4-4 of the evidence A), while B, the decedent pays the decedent a down payment of KRW 000 out of KRW 000 on the date of concluding the contract, the remainder of KRW 000 on June 1, 2003, and July 1, 2003, and the decedent delivers the real estate to II on July 1, 2003, and the lease period is 24 months from the date of delivery. On the other hand, the above contract is only written as the instant building, and it is not specified as the third floor and rooftop.

4) According to the copy of the passbook (Evidence No. 4-8) in Section II submitted by the Plaintiff to the inheritee, the sum of KRW 000,000, and the sum of KRW 000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000, from the account in Section II, was replaced by the bank account in December 12, 2002, and in March 10, 2003. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18173, Mar. 25, 2003>

5) According to the financial transactions between the decedent, the Labor Relations Commission, and the Kim H, and the sum deposited from September 4, 2006 to November 21, 2007, the maximum amount deposited into the account of the decedent was total of 000 won, while the amount deposited into the account of the decedent was total of 00 won, and the amount deposited into the account of the decedent from November 23, 2007 to August 14, 2009 was total of 00 won, while the amount deposited into the account of the decedent at this Kim H was total of 00 won (the tax authority imposed the gift tax on May 20, 200 on the decedent, considering that Kim H received 00 won (i.e., the difference from the decedent (=00 won - 0000 won) from the decedent). < Amended by Act No. 8135, Nov. 23, 2007>

6) With respect to the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review, around April 201, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 of the lease deposit in the operation of the cosmetics retail business from January 1, 1996 to the date when the Plaintiff leased a part of the first floor of the instant building (the first floor: 1:00 won, underground: 00 won, and 3:00 won) and the first floor and underground floor of the instant building from January 1, 1996, with the trade name of KK on the first floor of the instant building and underground from the third floor and the rooftop of the instant building, and the second, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff was residing in the third floor and the rooftop of the instant building and that the adequate lease deposit on the first floor and underground floor of the instant building were 00 won (the first floor and the third floor were 00 won, and the adequate lease deposit on the third floor and rooftop room were 00 won (the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review was 00 won and 000 won, respectively).

7) On July 201, 201, genderCC, the plaintiff, Kim H, and KimG prepared a confirmation (Evidence A 2-3) that "the plaintiff becomes an heir of the inheritee and is responsible for and repaid the inheritee's obligations," and the obligation of the inheritee stated in the said confirmation document is included in each of the obligations of the instant case.

[Grounds for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and arguments between the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-4, Eul evidence 4-8, Gap evidence 5, and Eul evidence 6, 3-2, 7-3, 4, and 4-2, and Eul evidence 4-2, and Eul evidence 4-2

D. Determination

1) Since an inheritee’s obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the liability for proving the existence of such obligation shall be deemed to be in the taxpayer who contests the amount of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983).

2) 살피건대， 앞서 본 사실관계 및 이에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정，①객관적인 금융자료에 의하여 원고가 피상속인에게 지급하였음이 확인되는 금원은 000원 뿐인 점，② 원고가 과세전적부심사청구 당시 '피상속인으로부터 이 사건 건물의 1층 일부분(대략 5평 정도)과 지하를 임차하였다'고 주장한 것으로 보아 원고가 피상속인으로부터 임차한 부분은 이 사건 건물의 1층 전부와 지하가 아니라 이 사건 건물의 1층 일부와 지하로 보이는 점，③ 원고는 피상속인에게 수회에 걸쳐 현금으로 000원에서 000원씩 총 000원을 대여하였다가 이를 변제받지 못하고 있던 중 000원을 임대차보증금으로 충당하였다고 주장하고 있으나，수백만 원의 돈을 현금으로 교부하였다는 것은 쉽게 납득하기 어렵고(뿐만 아니라 만약 원고가 그 주장과 같이 피상속인에게 000원 내지 000원의 돈을 현금으로 교부 하였다면 원고가 자신의 계좌에서 위 돈을 인출한 금융자료가 있을 것임에도 원고는 그에 관한 자료를 제출하지 못하고 었다)，원고의 종합소득세 신고내용에 비추어 원고 가 피상속인에게 총 000원이라는 거액의 돈을 대여할 자력이 있었다고 보기도 어려운 점，④ 원고의 주장에 의하면 나II은 자신의 계좌에서 2002. 12. 12. 000원， 2003. 3. 10. 000원， 2003. 3. 25. 000원 합계 000 원을 출금하여 이를 피상속인에게 임대차보증금으로 지급하였다는 것인데， 위 금원이 피상속인에게 지급되었다고 볼 아무런 금융자료가 제출되지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라 위 금원은 나II과 피상속인이 임대차계약을 체결한 2003. 3. 25. 이전에 출금되었으므로， 위 000원이 피상속인에게 임대차보증금으로 지급되었다고 인정하기 어려 운 점，⑤ 이PP는 2009. 7. 27. 피상속인으로부터 이 사건 건물의 2층을 임대차보증 금 000원에 임차하였는데(갑 제4호증의 6)， 이PP가 임차한 2층과 나II이 임차한 3층은 면적이 73.80㎡로 동일할 뿐만 아니라 나II은 이PP가 임대차계약을 체결하기 약 6년 전에 임대차계약을 체결하였으므로， 나II이 3층 이외에 옥탑층을 사용하였던 것을 감안하더라도 이PP보다 비싼 가격에 임대차계약을 체결하였을 것으로는 보이지 않는 점，⑥ 최JJ， 김HH는 피상속인의 계좌로 입금한 금원을 초과하는 금원을 피상속인으로부터 입금받았으므로， 피상속인이 최JJ， 김HH에 대한 차용금채 무를 모두 변제하였다고 볼 가능성이 높은 점，⑦ 김HH는 자신이 피상속인의 계좌로 입금한 금원과 피상속인으로부터 입금받은 금원의 차액에 대하여 과세관청으로부터 증여세를 부과받았는바， 김HH가 증여세부과처분에 대하여 이의를 제기하였음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없는 점，⑧ 성CC， 원고， 김GG， 김HH가 작성한 위 사실확인서에는 피상속인의 채무 중 하나로 이 사건 각 채무가 기재되어 있으나，위 사실확인서는 피고가 상속세 조사를 실시하여 원고가 신고한 상속채무 중 이 사건 각 채무를 부인하고 원고에게 상속세를 부과한 2011. 5. 2. 이후인 2011. 7.경 작성된 것이므로 그대로 믿기 어려운 점，⑨ 원고의 과세전적부심사청구에 대한 피고의 '과세전적부심사청구 심리 의견 및 심의요구서'는 피고의 의견에 불과하고，최종적으로 불채택결정이 내려진 점，⑩ 그 밖에 피상속인과 원고， 나OO， 최JJ， 김HH의 관계 등에 비추어 보면， 원고의 위 주장사실에 부합하는 갑 제2호증의 3의 기재는 믿기 어렵고， 갑 제2호증의 2， 4， 5， 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 7， 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 8， 갑 제5， 6호증의 각 1， 2， 3{특히 갑 제5호증의 1(피상속인이 2006. 5. 10. 최JJ에게 작성하여 준 8억 원에 대한 차용증이다)은 위 갑 제5호증의 2，갑 제6호증의 1， 2와 비교하여 피상속인의 이름 옆에 날인된 도장 인영이 달라 피상속인이 작성하였다고 믿기 어렵다}， 갑 제7호증의 7의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기 부족하며， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.