Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 383,140,80,00, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on March 10, 2017, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff and Ha○○○ are co-inheritors of the decedent, who died on December 7, 2013, who was his father and died on December 7, 2013 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a registration of preservation of ownership on a building of 430-2 square meters of land and its ground, 1,308 square meters and multi-dong (15.2 square meters of a single-story restaurant, 6.96 square meters of a single-story toilet, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Naho-dong (15.75 square meters of a single-story restaurant, hereinafter the same shall apply) among the deceased’s inherited property.

(1) On June 16, 2014, H○○○○○○○-do, which is the remaining inherited property of the deceased, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the following: ○○○-do ○○○○○-do 419-1 orchard 1,874 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); 430 square meters prior to 430 square meters prior to 430 square meters; 430-7 square meters prior to 430-7 square meters; and 788 square meters by an agreement division.

C. However, on December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Ha○○○ divided the inherited property with the purport that the Plaintiff owned the instant land solely (hereinafter “instant re-division”).

In addition, on December 23, 2015, according to the redivision of the instant case, the Plaintiff made a registration of correction on December 23, 2015 by changing the indication of the registered titleholder of the instant land from H○ to the Plaintiff

D. The Defendant: (a) on March 10, 2017, the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Law No. 1358, Dec. 15, 2015) (amended by Act No.

Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the Act, the Plaintiff deemed that it was donated the instant land from Ha○○○○ in accordance with Article 31(3) (amended by Act No. 1357; hereinafter the same shall apply), and determined and notified the gift tax of KRW 383,140,80 (including additional tax of KRW 58,800,000 and additional tax of KRW 30,340,800 for non-performance of payment and refund) for the year 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed on September 8, 2017.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, the purport of the whole pleading.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and Ha○○ divided the inherited property with the purport that the Plaintiff succeeds to the land of this case solely by agreement that the Plaintiff succeeds to the entire inherited property of the deceased at 2/3 and Ha○○○’s respective shares of shares of 1/3.

However, during the process of performing the inheritance and registration delegated by the Plaintiff, a certified judicial scrivener Lee ○ and his staff member prepared a division of property agreement to the effect that ○○, who is a person, succeeds the land of this case solely by mistake, and accordingly completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case to ○○○.

On December 2015, the Plaintiff discovered that the ownership transfer registration of the instant land was erroneous in the Ha○○ future, and re-divided the instant land as agreed with the Plaintiff and Ha○○○.

In addition, based on the redivision of this case, the Plaintiff made a registration of correction with the content of changing the indication of the registered titleholder of the land of this case from H○○ to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s registration of correction from Ha○○ to the Plaintiff following the redivision of this case was merely a restoration of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of Ha○○ name, which constitutes the invalidation of the original cause.

Therefore, the Plaintiff does not constitute a new acquisition of the instant land in excess of the initial share of inheritance by redivision, and the substantial cause of the change of the registered titleholder of the ownership transfer registration of the instant land cannot be deemed as a result of the donation by Ha○○, even if it was due to inheritance.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s proviso to Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26922, Jan. 22, 2016; hereinafter the same) are applicable to cases where justifiable grounds exist. Thus, the Defendant may not impose gift tax on either mother or the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff donated the instant land from Ha○○ pursuant to Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant provisions and issues of the instant case

A) According to Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the inherited property of each heir becomes final and conclusive by registration, registration, transfer of title, etc. (hereinafter “registration, etc.”) in lieu of inherited property after commencement of inheritance, and the registration, etc. thereof is completed. As a result of the division of inherited property in consultation with the co-inheritors, the value of the property acquired by a specific heir in excess of the original inherited property as a result of the division of inherited property shall include the property donated by an heir whose inherited portion has been reduced by division.

In addition, pursuant to Article 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where an heir or inherited property is changed by a final judgment of the court by a claim for recovery of inheritance under the proviso of Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and where inherited property registered according to the statutory share of inheritance by coinheritors pursuant to Article 404 of the Civil Code is redivisiond by division among heirs through the exercise of a creditor's subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Code, it refers to a case where an heir applies for payment of inherited property by registration, registration, transfer, etc. as a statutory share of inheritance pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Act in order to pay inheritance tax in kind within a deadline for filing inheritance tax base, but it is not permitted to pay in kind pursuant to Article 71,

B) According to the facts acknowledged prior to the date of the instant disposition, each share of inheritance between the Plaintiff and Ha○○○, a co-inheritors, was determined by registration, etc. on June 16, 2014 regarding the deceased’s inherited property, including the instant land, after December 7, 2013, which was the date of commencing the inheritance.

In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land in excess of the Plaintiff’s initial share of inheritance as a result of re-division between ○○ and the Plaintiff’s re-division after the expiration of the deadline for filing an inheritance tax base under Article 67 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (6 months from the last day of

Therefore, the land of this case is included in the property donated to Ha○○○ by the co-inheritors whose share of inheritance has decreased by redivision of this case, unless there is a justifiable reason under the proviso of Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that since the ownership transfer registration itself made in the Ha○○○○ future for the land of this case constitutes invalid cause, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the co-inheritors’s share of inheritance was confirmed by registration, etc., or that there is justifiable cause not included in the Ha○○ donated property.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the ownership transfer registration of the land of this case in the future of the Ha○○○○, as alleged by the plaintiff, constitutes the invalidity of cause.

2) Whether the registration of ownership transfer in the Ha○○○ future constitutes a invalidity of cause

In full view of the following circumstances, there is no dispute between the parties or by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8 and all pleadings, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case was not based on the plaintiff's genuine intent and that it constitutes a cause invalidation. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the land of this case becomes final and conclusive by registration, etc. after the commencement of inheritance and registration, etc., and thereafter becomes registered, etc., the land of this case constitutes the property acquired by the plaintiff in excess of the original share of inheritance as a result of division of the inherited property after consultation with

In addition, insofar as the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acknowledged, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land in excess of the original share of inheritance by redivision within the deadline for filing an inheritance tax base under Article 67 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, or that there is a justifiable ground under Article 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, such as invalidation

Ultimately, it is lawful to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the land of this case is included in the property donated by the co-inheritors whose share of inheritance has decreased by the re-division of this case.

A) On June 13, 2014, written between the Plaintiff and Ha○○○○○, the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff inherited the instant land and the instant land and the instant land, 1,30-2 site and its ground, 1,308 square meters, and the instant land and the instant land and the instant land and 430 square meters and 788 square meters prior to 430 square meters prior to 430 square meters.

B) On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the preservation of ownership on the ground of the following: (a) ○○○○-2 site 1,30-2 site; and (b) 1,308 square meters on its ground; and (c) Daho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-dong and Dongho-ho-dong buildings

In addition, on July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a third mortgage on the said site and its ground buildings, respectively, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 240 million, KRW 120 million, KRW 450 million, and KRW 450 million.

Therefore, it is difficult to understand this fact in light of sound common sense, transaction practices, and logical and empirical rules, since the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was not in the future, while making the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate more than time after the registration of ownership transfer was made, it was difficult to understand this fact in light of sound common sense, transaction practices, and logical and empirical rules.

C) The Plaintiff made a registration of correction with the content of changing the registered titleholder’s indication on the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land, and sold the instant land to ○○ Housing Co., Ltd. on two occasions on November 29, 2015 and May 1, 2016.

However, on December 26, 2014, H○○ had already sold 750 square meters prior to 430 square meters and 430-7 square meters prior to ○○○○○ Housing owned by the said ○○ Housing.

Even based on these circumstances, it is difficult to readily believe that the Plaintiff or H○○○ was unaware of the fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was made not by the Plaintiff but by the Plaintiff for a long time, unlike its contents of consultation.

D) Rather, (1) The Plaintiff may have a high transfer income tax in the event that the instant land, the ownership transfer registration of which was made under the name of Ha○○, which does not form a farmer company, may arise, and thus, an agreement was made with Ha○○○ to make a registration of correction in the name of the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land is owned by himself/herself, and the Plaintiff is a person who granted Ha○○ an amount equivalent to 1/3 of the purchase price of the instant land (see Plaintiff’s preparatory brief No. 4

In addition, taking account of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s real estate donated from the deceased’s king up to 10 lots in total, and that it is unreasonable to deem the Plaintiff as being inherited to the instant land by itself, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership to the Ha○○○ future on the instant land constitutes a cause invalidation, as it was different from the initially divided land by agreement between the co-inheritors and the Ha○○○○○.

3. Conclusion

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