2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. On March 28, 2011, the Plaintiff et al. succeeded to the deceased on March 28, 201, and the details of the inherited property are as listed below:

List

1

Seoul Mapo-dong 000-00 Site

2

Building 000-00 Ground Building Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

3

I Return of interest, 000-00,000 square meters, at the time of an official residence

4

Gongju-do 000-00 00 square meters

5

50 00 square meters prior to the 00th of

6

"주식회사 ㅇㅇㅇ(이하 ㅇㅇㅇ 비상장주식(이하 '이 사건 주식') I",7

망인이 운영하던 ㅇㅇ연구사의 외상매줄금 등

8

ㅇㅇ연구사의 고등학교 검정교과서 줄자금

9

ㅇㅇ연구사의 한국 중학교 검정교과서 줄자금

10

ㅇㅇ연구사의 중학교 검정교과서 줄자금

11

망인이 운영하던 QQ사의 사업용 재산 등

12

Deposit

13

“Loan (CCC Co., Ltd.)”, 14

Assets whose location is unknown prior to commencement;

B. On September 30, 201, when the Plaintiff, etc. reported to the Defendant the value of inherited property KRW 14,955,796,857, the Plaintiff, etc. applied for permission to pay in kind KRW 000,000, out of the inheritance tax amount, on the grounds that the management and disposition of senior real estate among inherited property is inappropriate and that the Plaintiff, etc. is not capable of paying the inheritance tax with the property of the Plaintiff, etc.

"To this end, on April 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) granted 81.07% of the total amount of inherited property in excess of 000 won, which is the limit of payment in kind; (b) on April 23, 2012, the amount of 81.7% of the value of real estate and securities, which is the limit of payment in kind, shall be the limit of payment in kind; (c) granted the payment in kind to 000 won, and denied the payment in kind for 000 won in excess of the limit of payment in kind (hereinafter referred to as “provisional disposition of payment in kind”); and (d) thereafter, the Defendant confirmed the omission of inherited property equivalent to 00 won in addition to the inherited property reported by the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. to pay 00 won in addition to the inheritance tax. Moreover, on June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, etc. requested the Plaintiff, etc. to grant the payment in kind in the instant case to the Plaintiff, etc.

"However, on July 10, 2012, the defendant permitted payment in kind only for 000 won (00 weeks) among the inheritance tax amount payable in addition to 77.83% exceeding the limit of payment in kind equivalent to 000 won of the value of real estate and securities, including the inherited property omitted on July 10, 2012, and rejected payment in kind for 000 won exceeding the limit of payment in kind (hereinafter referred to as "the second provisional provisional disposition on payment in kind"). The plaintiff et al. rejected payment in kind on June 14, 2012. The plaintiff et al. filed an appeal against each Tax Tribunal on July 27, 2000, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on October 30, 2012 (Article 274 of the same year).

[Based on Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence l through 3, and Gap evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

서울 마포구 공덕동 000-00 토지와 그 지상 건물(순번 I， 2)의 경우 시가를 초과 하는 금액을 채권최고액무로 하여 금융기관에 담보로 제공되어 있는 점， 공주시 이인 면 반송리 000-0 외 2필지(순번 3 내지 5)는 원고 등의 묘토인 점，망인이 운영하던 ㅇㅇ연구사， QQ사의 사업용 자산(순번 6， 7， ll)은 대부분 현금으로 환가가 불가능한 점， 예금(순번 12)는 대부분 상속재산의 등기 및 망인의 장례비용으로 사용된 점，고등학교 검정교과서 출자금 등(순번 8 내지 10)은 지분형태로 존재하고 있어 환가가 불가능한 점， CCCC에 대한 대여금 채권(순번 13) 역시 CCCC가 폐업하여 사실상 환수가 불가능한 점，원고 등이 미국 영주권자이거나 사업의 실패로 국내에 보유재산 이 없는 점 등을 고려하면，원고 등이 상속세 납부를 위하여 현금으로 환가가 가능한 자산이 거의 없고 부동산의 경우 관리 및 처분이 부적당한 재산이어서 물납을 신청할 수 밖에 없으므로，비상장주식에 대한 물납 한도를 초과하였다는 이유로 한도 초과분에 대한 물납을 불허한 이 사건 처분은 피고의 재량권을 일탈・남용한 것이다.

B. Relevant statutes

•Article 73 (Payment in Kind) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(1) Where the value of real estate or securities (excluding stocks or investment shares of a corporation not listed on the Korea Exchange (hereafter referred to as "non-listed stocks" in this paragraph) and where there are reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where no inherited property exists other than non-listed stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) among the property inherited or donated exceeds 1/2 of the value of the relevant property and the amount of the inheritance tax or gift tax payable exceeds 10 million won, the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may allow only the real estate and securities to pay in kind upon request of the person liable for tax payment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That where it is deemed inappropriate to manage and dispose of

(2) The scope of assets that can be appropriated for payment in kind, and where it is deemed inappropriate to manage and dispose of them, and matters necessary for the procedure for payment in kind and application for payment in kind shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 73 (Scope of Claim for Payment in Kind)

(1) The amount of tax payable that can be claimed to pay in kind pursuant to the provisions of Article 73 of the Act shall not exceed the amount of inheritance tax or gift tax paid on the value of the real estate and securities (including the relevant real estate and securities subject to donation, and hereafter in this Article and Articles 74 and 75, the same shall apply) which are the relevant inherited or donated property.

(2) Where there is no value suitable for paying the payable tax amount under paragraph (1) from among the inherited or donated real estate and securities, the head of a tax office may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), permit a payment in kind in excess of the payable tax amount.

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where inherited or donated property is changed to an inappropriate property without justifiable grounds during the period from the commencement date of inheritance or the date of donation (including the act of presumption of donation or donation) to the date of application for payment in kind, the amount of inheritance tax or gift tax equivalent to the inappropriate property value shall be excluded from the amount of tax payable in kind.

C. Determination

1) The main text of Article 73(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that among inherited property as a requirement for payment in kind, the value of real estate and securities shall exceed 1/2 of the value of inherited property shall be limited to real estate and securities, and the limit of the amount of tax to be paid in kind is not specifically specified. However, in light of the fact that the legal provision of this case limits the scope of property the payment in kind to real estate and securities, it is difficult to view that the legal provision of this case limits the scope of property the payment in kind is permitted to be paid in kind to real estate and securities. In addition, even according to its language and text, it is difficult to view that the legal provision of this case is not only the method and procedure of permission for payment in kind, but also the limit of the amount of tax payable in kind to which payment in kind shall be permitted in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), so it cannot be deemed that the legal provision of Article 73(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant Act provides that the amount of tax payable in kind may not be delegated.

The purpose of Article 73(2) of the Enforcement Decree is to prevent inherited property from being paid in kind, but it is not possible to divide it in accordance with the payable tax amount that can be claimed for payment in kind under Article 73(1) of the Enforcement Decree. Therefore, the "real estate and securities which are inherited property" as referred to in the above provision refers to the case where the received value of the property to be paid in kind exceeds the inheritance tax amount on the real estate and securities which are inherited property, the limit of the payable tax amount that can be claimed for payment in kind under Article 73(1) of the Enforcement Decree. In addition, the system of payment in kind is specially recognized as an exception to the principle of cash payment in kind, and the inheritance tax and gift tax law provides an annual payment system separate from the system of payment in kind (see Article 71).

Unless there are special circumstances, the head of a tax office may allow the payment in kind in excess of the limit provided for in Article 73(1) of the Enforcement Decree, only when the requirements are met. Therefore, non-listed stocks eligible to pay in kind per share can pay in kind the amount of tax by paying in kind the quantity equivalent to the amount of tax payable for the value of real estate and securities that are inherited property. Thus, barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the real estate and securities that are inherited property provided for in Article 73(2) of the Enforcement Decree does not constitute a case where there is no value equivalent to the amount of tax payable under paragraph (1) among the real estate and securities that are inherited property provided for in Article 73(2) of the Enforcement Decree, and where the payment in kind is permitted only for part of non-listed stocks that are inherited property, the remaining economic value of the portion may not be maintained by the remaining ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du

2) Based on the above legal principles, the scope of payment in kind is, in principle, limited to the amount of inheritance tax levied on the value of real estate and securities among inherited property. Moreover, the scope of payment in kind, such as the recovery of claims inherited by the Plaintiff or other difficulties in asset realization, etc. cannot be deemed to fall under the case where there is no value equivalent to the amount of tax payable among real estate and securities, which are inherited property as provided by Article 73(2) of the Enforcement Decree, and the stocks held by the Plaintiff, etc. can be paid in kind by paying in kind the amount equivalent to the amount of tax payable among the real estate and securities, so the disposition of this case for which payment in kind is not permitted is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.