2. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 219,00,000 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows: (a) from "the developments leading to the disposition of 1.1 to "the legitimacy of the disposition of 2. A. The plaintiff's assertion, and (b) related statutes," each corresponding part of the judgment of 1.1 to "the grounds for the judgment of 2.2." (the second to third to 8.). Thus, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited (Provided, That "the second to 4.2, 2010" in the second to 5 of the judgment of 1.1 to "the second to 20.6.6.2, 2010" appears to be "the wrong statement of

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Details of the relevant statutes and legal principles

(1) According to the relevant statutes cited earlier, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that insurance proceeds of life insurance or non-life insurance received by an ancestor due to the death of an ancestor and received as an insurance contract that is a policyholder shall be deemed inherited property (Article 8(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act). Such life insurance proceeds, etc. are included in the taxable value of inherited property, and Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides that a person who has renounced inheritance pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall also be included in the scope of the heir (Article 3(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act). As regards inheritance tax imposed pursuant to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, among inherited

(2) Meanwhile, the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that in principle, when inheritance commences due to the death of an inheritee, the inheritor is liable to pay national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fees for arrears imposed on or to be paid by the inheritee, to the inheritee within the scope of “property inherited” (Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, unlike the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the provisions do not include the scope of the inheritor of a person who has renounced inheritance, and there is no provision regarding the property deemed as inherited property or presumed as inherited property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, such as life insurance.

(3) Furthermore, in a life insurance contract for which the policyholder has concluded the life insurance contract where the insured's inheritor as the beneficiary is the beneficiary, the inheritor of the insured may claim the insurer as the beneficiary when the insured's death occurred, and such right naturally takes effect due to the validity of the insurance contract. Thus, the insurance money received by the deceased's inheritor due to the death of the deceased is not an inherited property acquired by inheritance or testamentary gift, but an inheritor's inherent property acquired by the inheritor according to the validity of the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da29463, Jul. 9, 2004; 2005Du5529, Nov. 30, 2007).

B. Determination

In full view of the content and legal principles of the above relevant statutes and the following circumstances, even though the Plaintiff’s husband’s non-party 1 (non-party to the judgment of the Supreme Court), regardless of the Plaintiff’s renunciation of inheritance, the Plaintiff may be deemed the deceased’s heir under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, regardless of the Plaintiff’s renunciation of inheritance against the deceased’s husband, and even if the instant insurance money acquired by the Plaintiff due to the death of the deceased under a life insurance contract that the deceased concluded with the beneficiary as the beneficiary of the Plaintiff is deemed inherited property and the inheritance tax is imposed, it is reasonable to interpret that the instant insurance money cannot be deemed as “property acquired by inheritance” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of the tax law shall be interpreted as the text of the law, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, barring any special circumstance. However, inasmuch as the Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for the legal fiction that the person who has renounced inheritance should be included in the scope of his/her heir, or that the heir's proprietary property, such as the insurance money to be caused by the death of the decedent, should be regarded as the "property received by inheritance" and there is no explicit provision that the decedent shall succeed to the tax liability for delinquent taxes, in principle, the insurance money, which is the proprietary property that the person who has renounced inheritance, shall be caused by the death of the decedent, shall be deemed as

(2) In addition, in principle, insurance money received by an heir due to the death of the inheritee is merely an inherited property of an heir under the Civil Act as seen earlier, and it does not constitute inherited property. However, even if Article 8(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, etc. provides that legislative legitimacy can be recognized as necessary to prevent artificial avoidance of inheritance tax and to realize the principle of equity in taxation and substance over form, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the logical interpretation that, in addition to the imposition of inheritance tax on the insurance money received by an heir who has renounced inheritance, the heir is liable to pay the national tax, etc. that is originally liable to pay to the inheritee within the scope of the insurance money in arrears, within the scope of the insurance money, due to the failure to regulate unfair tax evasion or the impairment of equity in taxation, there is no special circumstance to deem that tax justice cannot be realized.

(3) Although the Defendant, based on the above Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5529 Decided November 30, 2007, which held that the provision of Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not violate the principle of guarantee of property rights under the Constitution or the principle of no taxation without the law, the Defendant asserted that the instant insurance money can be deemed as property acquired by the death of the deceased by the Plaintiff. However, the above Supreme Court decision merely stated that Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax shall be levied by deeming the insurance money as inherited property in the case of insurance money under Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is justifiable in light of the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of taxation, and it does not mean that Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is construed as “property acquired by inheritance” under a life insurance contract concluded by the decedent prior to the death of the deceased.

(4) Meanwhile, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the insurance money of this case filed by the Plaintiff with the Tax Tribunal on June 21, 2011 constituted “property inherited” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the Tax Tribunal, as of November 15, 2011, cannot be deemed as “property acquired by inheritance” under a life insurance contract, which is acquired by a heir who renounced inheritance as of November 15, 201 through a joint meeting of the Tax Judges, on the ground that the insurance money of this case cannot be deemed as “property acquired by inheritance” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, on the ground that the said insurance money falls under “property acquired by inheritance” on the premise that the pertinent tax authority otherwise designates the heir as a joint obligor for delinquent tax under the premise that the said insurance money falls under “property acquired by inheritance” and at the same time decides to cancel the disposition appropriated for delinquent tax amount by seizing the above insurance money (documents number: document number : 1750 of the

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the insurance money of this case constitutes "property acquired by inheritance" under Article 24 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is unlawful, so the plaintiff's assertion claiming the cancellation of the disposition of this case is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and cancelling it.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)