beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나70279

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and defendant of the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is from 13 to 11-2 of the first instance judgment.

D. (2) The reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant: (a) was in a situation in which the Plaintiff was in need of cash equivalent to KRW 440,00,000 as the new commercial housing construction fund at the time; (b) the Plaintiff’s financial property of the deceased; and (c) D changed to have succeeded to the deceased’s multi-family house; and (d) the Defendant was entrusted only with the simple filing of a report according to the method determined by the Plaintiff, but did not conclude an inheritance tax advisory contract with the Plaintiff; (b) was imposed an inheritance tax in accordance with the division method determined by

It argues that there is no responsibility for compensating for damages caused by it.

However, according to the evidence admitted above, the plaintiff found the defendant for the purpose of saving inheritance and provided tax counseling with the defendant, and trusted the defendant's end that no inheritance tax is levied at all even according to the final division plan, and determined the method of inherited property accordingly.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff, even though he was aware that the inheritance tax will be levied on a high-amount amount of inheritance tax, delegated only a simple reporting agent to the defendant in order to secure cash.

In addition, a certified tax accountant who is delegated by a taxpayer with the vicarious bookkeeping for filing a tax return and by proxy for filing a tax return shall handle the delegated affairs with the care of a good manager depending on the nature of the delegation. In particular, a certified tax accountant is public.