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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 105,870,570 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 2014 is revoked.

A. As her mother Kima died on December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 27, 2013, calculated the inherited property value of KRW 5,878,00,000; (b) debt amount of KRW 4,983,00,000; and (c) inheritance tax amount of KRW 109,00,000; and (d) reported inheritance tax to the Defendant.

B. From December 26, 2013 to March 5, 2014, the commissioner of the Ss. Regional Tax Office: (a) investigated the inheritance tax on the decedent; (b) notified the Defendant of the result of denying the unpaid rent of KRW 161,902,200 among the debts of the decedent (hereinafter referred to as “one debt”); and (c) 73,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “second debt”) out of the loans under the name of the Plaintiff, the place of use of which is unclear; and (d) on August 4, 2014, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 105,870,570 as inheritance tax.

C. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on December 18, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The first obligation is an unpaid rental fee for the land leased by the decedent from 2008 to 2012 to 2012 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The second obligation is a debt incurred by the decedent with a loan borrowed in the name of the plaintiff and used to extend the building owned by him/her. Therefore, all of the obligations of the decedent must be deducted from the value of the Plaintiff’s inherited property as the obligation of the decedent. Accordingly, the instant disposition made on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The amount of an inheritee’s obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property refers to an obligation for which it is deemed certain that the inheritee would have to perform with the ultimate burden at the time of commencing the inheritance. The liability for proving the existence thereof lies in the person liable for duty payment who contests the taxable value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9886, Sept. 24, 2004).

2) Part of the first debt

According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 8 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-5, the decedent entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff and Daddd on Dec. 27, 2007 with the title of the deceased on Dec. 23, 2007 (the title of the business operator changed from the decedent to the plaintiff on Jan. 23, 2013, changed to the title of the decedent on Jan. 23, 2013, the title of the deceased was changed to the plaintiff on Feb. 2698,370 (including value-added tax) in order to use the land for the payment of rent Nos. 2,698,370 (including value-added tax) for the deceased's global income tax return for the year 2012 (Evidence No. 5-5), and the remaining debt amount is included in the statement of financial position (Evidence No. 18) attached to the above report.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the value of the inherited property is not deducted from the inherited property because it is difficult to view the first obligation as the obligation of the inheritee, which is the inheritor, as the obligation of the inheritee, is difficult to be considered as the obligation of the inheritee,

① The Plaintiff reported that the rent for the instant land was KRW 2,698,370 per month and was unpaid for five years from 2008 to 2012. However, there is no consistency in the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of unpaid rent, such as deduction of the rent for the instant land from the unpaid rent to the account of the decedent’s account since then, the Plaintiff reported that there was a total of KRW 161,902,200,00 from 208 to 2012. However, considering that the circumstance where the money equivalent to the rent for the instant land was partially transferred from the account of the decedent’s account, it is difficult to prove that there was no credibility of the Plaintiff’s global income tax return, including the rent for the instant land, and that there was no amount of interest payment accrued from the Plaintiff’s land at the time of filing the global income tax return for 201 and no amount of unpaid rent for 20 years from 20 years to 20 years from 2011.

3) The second debt portion

According to the above evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff used 900 million won by borrowing gggggggg No. 3 of April 3, 2009 with loans from a new bank on November 17, 201 and repaid gggg No. 3 of the above loans from a new bank on November 17, 201, and the plaintiff reported the inheritance tax including the debt of the deceased.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 12, Eul evidence No. 9, and Eul evidence No. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the second obligation cannot be viewed as an obligation of the inheritee and it is difficult to regard it as an obligation of the inheritee and thus, it is not deducted from the value of inherited property. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① Of the amount loaned by the Plaintiff from Ggg, the second debt was withdrawn in cash on April 3, 2009 and April 7, 2009. The Plaintiff asserted that the said money was used for the extension of the building owned by the inheritee and submitted only to this court the building management ledger and the permit for extension of the relevant building, and did not have any assertion and evidence as to the use of the said money for any purpose in connection with the extension of the building. However, the amount withdrawn on April 3, 2009 is KRW 65 million, and the amount withdrawn on April 27, 2009 was an amount equivalent to KRW 8 million, even if a considerable time has elapsed, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff did not specify the purpose of the payment. ② On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not submit evidentiary materials for the extension of Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as evidence for the purpose of the extension of the building. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21480, May 7, 2009>

3. Conclusion

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