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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Plaintiff AA is the spouse of BB (hereinafter “the decedent”) who died on October 13, 2014, and Plaintiff CCC and Plaintiff DD are the inheritee’s children. The Plaintiffs reported inheritance tax to the Defendant on April 30, 2015.

B. From August 1, 2016 to January 13, 2017, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs, as a result, included KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000, which was paid to ○○○○○ Association omitted at the time of the filing of inheritance tax, in the taxable value of inheritance tax, and considered Plaintiff AA’s new bank as a joint business account for the Plaintiff and the inheritee, and accordingly, deemed that the insurance premium was paid at the issue account (hereinafter “dispute insurance premium”) as KRW 1 billion,00,000,000,000,000,000 (hereinafter “previous portion of inheritance tax”) of the deceased’s death insurance money paid at the issue account (hereinafter “instant insurance premium”) as the inherited property value (hereinafter “instant portion”), and decided on February 13, 2017 to the Plaintiffs on February 9, 2017 (hereinafter “previous notice”).

C. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal decided that the amount of KRW 150 million paid to the ○○○○ Association on September 7, 2017 should be included in the taxable value of inherited property by excluding this portion on the ground that it is unreasonable to include it in the taxable value of inherited property.

D. In accordance with the purport of the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant corrected the amount of tax to KRW 000,000 (including additional tax) and refunded the amount of tax to the Plaintiffs (including KRW 00,000,000,000 (the refund to KRW 00,000,000 + additional refund to refund).

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 10 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

The Plaintiffs filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a judgment on the instant disposition, and withdrawn the claim on the issues, and the amount of tax was reduced or corrected upon acceptance of the full acceptance of the remaining parts, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the key part is unlawful without going through the previous trial procedure or there is no benefit

B. Determination

In light of the aforementioned facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 18, 19, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including above numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the whole previous disposition, and withdrawn his claim as to the issues. However, since the previous disposition was all subject to the inquiry by the Tax Tribunal, the tax Tribunal is given the opportunity to re-examine and correct the previous disposition, so long as the previous disposition is given by the Tax Tribunal, it cannot be deemed that the previous procedure was not followed. Furthermore, the lawsuit in this case is not disputing the illegality of the disposition in this case, nor does it dispute the decision of the Tax Tribunal, and therefore, the interest in the lawsuit is recognized as long as the disposition in this case unfavorable to the plaintiff remains after the decision of the Tax Tribunal. Accordingly, the defendant's main

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

The key issue is Plaintiff AA’s account, and Plaintiff AA and the inheritee (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff and wife”) transfer the part necessary for the joint business from the money deposited in the key account to the separate business account. The remainder of the key account is Plaintiff AA’s personal property. Accordingly, the key issue premium paid out from the key account is that Plaintiff AA paid by Plaintiff AA.

2) Defendant

The key issue is that the money deposited in the key account as a joint business account of the Plaintiff couple is the income accrued from the joint business account of the Plaintiff couple. The Plaintiff couple did not properly distribute the income. Since the remaining money of the key account is unclear, it is presumed that the ratio of shares as public property of the Plaintiff couple is equal. Therefore, since half of the premium paid in the key account is actually paid by the inheritee, the issue is that the amount of insurance money is considered inherited property pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Joint business between the plaintiff and the plaintiff

A) Plaintiff AA and the inheritee were married on February 12, 1997 at the time of her husband’s attendance, and both were doctors.

B) On June 20, 2002, Plaintiff AA opened a key account and used a personal account and used a business account by opening the key account when Plaintiff AA opened the ○○○○ (after this, the trade name was changed to ○○○○’s post-humanate and Minorate’s Medical Service).

다) 피상속인은 2005. 4. 15.부터 이 사건 의원에 합류하여 원고 AAA와 함께 손익분배비율을 50:50으로 하여 공동사업자가 되었다.

D) Of the sales revenue of Plaintiff Husband and wife of this case, the sales revenue of Plaintiff AA was 100-00-0000 (hereinafter “BC card sales revenue account”) with a new bank of Plaintiff AA (hereinafter “BC card sales revenue account”), the remaining sales revenue was received from the key account, and then again transferred the money of the BC card sales account to the key account, and the amount equivalent to expenses, such as personnel expenses and medicine expenses incurred in the instant member’s personnel and medicine expenses, was transferred from the key account to the 100-00-0000 account of Plaintiff AA’s new bank of this case (hereinafter “business account”), and the specific details are as listed below.

2) Circumstances leading to the payment of key insurance premiums and the receipt of key insurance proceeds

A) On September 3, 2007, Plaintiff AA entered into two life insurance contracts (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contracts”) between ING Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and its policyholder and beneficiary in preparation for the death of the deceased’s spouse, after consulting with the insurance solicitors affiliated with KING Life Insurance Co., Ltd., which had been pro rata to an elementary school. At the time, Plaintiff AA entered into two life insurance contracts where the deceased’s spouse is the insured. At the time, Plaintiff AA, a high-income earner, who was a professional, provided advice that inheritance tax will not occur if Plaintiff AA paid insurance premiums from his account.

B) The Plaintiff AA paid the monthly insurance premium by means of automatic transfer from the key account after directly paying the insurance premium once when taking up the key insurance policy.

C) As the decedent died on October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff AA received the total amount of KRW 1 billion as the beneficiary of the instant insurance on November 26, 2014.

3) Details of expenditure of the key account (other than those transferred to this business account before)

A) The details transferred from the issue account to the account of the inheritee’s new bank 000-0000 to the account of the inheritee’s new bank 00-0000 are as listed below.

B) Educational expenses, etc. (No. 12-1) were disbursed for the children of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife in the key account, and the mother of the inheritee was paid KRW 1 million a month under the name of the mother’s living expenses.

4) Details of the income of Plaintiffs AA and the inheritee

A) The details of Plaintiff AA’s global income tax return income in 2007-2014 are as listed below.

B) The details of global income tax returns filed by the inheritee in 2010-2014 are as listed below.

5) Neither a new bank of the inheritee 000-00-000, the common living expenses (Evidence A26) of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife were disbursed.

6) In addition to the issues covered by the Plaintiff AA and the decedent, the insurance details separately purchased by the Plaintiff A and the decedent are as listed below.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 6-17, 26-28, Eul evidence Nos. 1-7, 11, and 12 (including above number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire argument, the part in excess of the legitimate tax amount deemed to have been unlawful since it cannot be deemed that the predecessor actually paid the key insurance premium.

1) The issue of the insurance was that Plaintiff AA purchased as a policyholder and beneficiary in preparation for the death of the deceased who is his spouse. Plaintiff AA had sufficient ability to pay the insurance premium as a senior income earner. The issue was that the insurance premium was paid in the accounts presumed to be the special property of Plaintiff AA, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the issue insurance premium should be deemed to have been paid by Plaintiff AA.

2) Plaintiff AA transferred the operating expenses of the instant Council member to a separate business account from the key issue account at the time when the instant Council member was operated jointly with the inheritee to the said new bank account of the inheritee. It is reasonable to view that the operating expenses of the instant Council member and the amount remaining in the key account after allocating profits to the inheritee who is a joint business proprietor, as a matter of principle, the amount remaining in the key account is an individual property equivalent to the Plaintiff AA’s share (see, e.g., the global income tax return amount, even if the said amount was the global income tax return amount, there is no big difference between the income amount excluding 2014

3) The Plaintiff AA and the inheritee are deemed to have shared their own household expenses by separately managing their respective assets based on their own income, such as subscribing to a large number of insurance policies, and paying their insurance premiums from their respective accounts, etc. Therefore, the issues for which the insurance premium was paid in the key account shall also belong to the Plaintiff AA with the property subscribed and managed by the Plaintiff AA.

4) As alleged by the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff AA and the inheritee received money from each other even after distributing the profits from the joint business in the key accounts, this is considered to have been done in the process of preserving and settling the expenses among the Plaintiff’s husband and wife. It is insufficient to recognize that such circumstance alone did not properly distribute the profits to the inheritee, and there is no ground to recognize that the money remaining in the key accounts is the joint property of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife.

(e) Scope of legitimate tax amount and cancellation;

Article 47-3 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014) shall apply to the calculation of the justifiable amount of the disposition of this case by calculating the additional tax on negligent tax returns by applying Article 47-3 (1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014), and the specific grounds for calculation are as shown in attached Form 2. Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 00,000,00

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.