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

A. On October 25, 1958, LAA, the Plaintiff’s attached, donated the land of 1,560 square meters (hereinafter “land before the instant division”) to Gyeonggi-do as the site for a high school, and thereafter, Gyeonggi-do uses the said land as the site for the practical use of the high school.

B. On December 2, 1994, Gyeonggi-do filed a lawsuit against the above Lee-A seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the land prior to the division of this case against the above Lee-A, and received a favorable judgment on April 9, 1996 by Suwon District Court 94Gahap24056, which was a constructive confession, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer.

C. Meanwhile, on July 26, 2003, thisA died while residing in the United States as a citizen of the United States of America, and on July 6, 2004, the land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into the same horizontal 00-0 square meters, 912 square meters, 00-0 square meters, and 179 square meters (hereinafter “after the instant subdivision”) of the same horizontal 00-0 square meters and 469 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On December 14, 2005, the Korea Land Corporation expropriatedd the instant land as a road site, and deposited KRW 194,916,400 in this case’s name.

D. On December 14, 2006, the Plaintiff, the heir of thisA, and BB, ED, E, E, E, E, and EF (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land after the division of this case. Accordingly, Gyeonggi-do completed the provisional disposition on the land on January 26, 2007, and the Plaintiff, etc. filed a subsequent appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na25379) on February 1, 2007, the Seoul High Court made a subsequent appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na25379) on June 5, 2008, the Plaintiff, etc. conducted the registration of ownership transfer on the land after the division of this case on the ground of donation from October 25, 1958, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land of this case, and the remainder of the expropriation of this case on the land was finalized by Gyeonggi-do 1,200,164.7.

E. Accordingly, on August 1, 2009, the Defendant added KRW 124,916,400 to the value of inherited property owned by the Plaintiff, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 34,940,270 of inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant, who is the disposition authority on September 3, 2009, but was dismissed on October 13 of the same year, and was requested to the Tax Tribunal on December 16, 2009, but was dismissed on July 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, evidence Nos. 6-5, 8, 9-1 to 4, 11, 12-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Before the commencement of inheritance, this AA has already donated the land before the division of this case to Gyeonggi-do, and the plaintiff succeeds the land before the division of this case at the time of the commencement of inheritance and bears the obligation to transfer the land to Gyeonggi-do at the same time, and the inheritance obligation should be deducted in calculating inheritance tax, so no inheritance tax shall be levied on the land before the division of this case including the land of this case. The defendant recognized that the portion of compensation acquired by the plaintiff is inherited, and that the land after the division of this case and the compensation for the acquisition of Gyeonggi-do are not inherited property. The defendant committed a violation of arbitrary decomposition of single donation act

In addition, the compensation acquired by the Plaintiff is a kind of compensation for mental, time, and economic expenses paid by the Plaintiff, and only falls under the miscellaneous income of Article 119 (12) (j) of the Income Tax Act, not subject to the imposition of inheritance tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Under our legal system that takes the form principle as to the change in real rights due to a juristic act, the acquisition date of real estate is the time of the registration of transfer of ownership due to the donation, and even if the donee uses and profits from real estate after the delivery of the real estate, it shall not be deemed that the real estate has been acquired as long as the registration of transfer of ownership has not been completed. Therefore, in case where the donor who was the owner of the real estate died in such a state, the real estate belongs to inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4529, Nov. 27, 1992). The obligation of the inheritee to be deducted from the value of inherited property refers to the obligation that the decedent is deemed to have been guaranteed to be performed with the ultimate burden of the decedent at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and the assertion and burden of proof as to the existence is on the taxpayer who disputes the taxable amount of inheritance taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983).

Pursuant to such legal principles, this case's land belongs to the inherited property of this case, since this case's land belongs to the inherited property of this case, and the compensation for expropriation of this case's land belongs to the above inherited property (i.e., inheritance debt related to the land of this case can be deemed to have been determined as KRW 70,00,000 among the compensation for expropriation that Gyeonggi-do would have obtained as seen earlier, and the remaining compensation for expropriation is deemed to have been included as final inherited property). Further, the above compensation for expropriation acquired by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize it as compensation for the plaintiff's mental, time, and economic expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (i.e., it cannot be deemed that Gyeonggi-do has paid compensation for expropriation again after the full acquisition of the compensation for expropriation), and there is no illegality in the disposal of the above inherited property by the defendant (i.e., the above compensation for expropriation of this case's land).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.