[상속세등부과처분취소][공2000.8.1.(111),1686]
[1] In a case where the requirements for permission for payment by annual installments under the former Inheritance Tax Act are met, whether the head of a tax office receives the maturity of permission for payment by annual installments (affirmative with qualification)
[2] Whether Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides the type of security for tax payment, lists the type of security for tax payment on a limited basis (affirmative)
[3] The case holding that a deposit does not constitute security for tax payment under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
[1] According to the provisions of Article 28(1), (2), and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996), in a case where the director of the tax office satisfies all the requirements for permission for annual payment, such as the amount of tax exceeds 10 million won, the amount of tax is provided as security for tax payment, and the application is submitted by the statutory deadline, the director of the tax office shall be bound to grant permission for annual payment, unless there is any requirement for revocation of permission for annual payment under Article 28(3) of the same Act at that time.
[2] Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides security provided under tax-related Acts such as "1. 2. State bonds or local bonds which the head of a tax office (in the case where the head of a customs office takes charge of the affairs concerning national taxes under tax-related Acts, the head of a customs office) is reliable; 4. The letter of guarantee for the guarantee for the guarantee for the guarantee for the guarantee of the tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-related tax-
[3] The case holding that a deposit does not constitute security for tax payment under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
[1] Article 28(1), (2), and (3) (see current Article 71(1), (2), and (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996) / [2] Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [3] Article 28(1), (2), and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996) (see current Article 71(1), (2), and (4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9374 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1624) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2939 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong198, 1027) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17274 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3355)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Lee-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of Sungbuk Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu43814 delivered on May 6, 1998
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the scope of inherited property
The court below rejected the plaintiffs' evidence submitted to the plaintiff 1 on February 10, 1965 regarding the claim that the plaintiff 1 purchased the land from the deceased non-party on February 10, 1965, Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), and found that the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it. The disposition of this case that included the land in the inherited property was lawful. The court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs.
2. As to the deduction of farmland inheritance
The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff 1 continued to grow in the land of this case as a member of his father's non-party's family, so the deceased non-party's non-party's family member can be viewed as a farmer's death, based on the circumstances as stated in its holding, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's submission that the deceased non-party and the plaintiff 1 directly engaged in agriculture, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the amount of the inherited property of this case should be deducted from the value of the inherited property of this case under Article 11-3 (1) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 190). According to the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision is just, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased non-party, who is the deceased, directly engaged in agriculture.
3. As to the legitimacy of the rejection disposition against payment by annual installments
According to the provisions of Article 28(1), (2), and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), in cases where the requirements for permission for annual payment are satisfied, such as (1) tax amount exceeds 10 million won, (2) tax amount is provided, (3) tax payment is provided, and (3) application is submitted by the statutory deadline, the requirements for permission for annual payment are already satisfied, unless there is any requirement for revocation of permission for annual payment under annual payment under Article 28(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act at the time (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9374, Apr. 10, 1992).
In addition, Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides security provided under tax-related Acts, where the head of a tax office on January 2, 200, which is recognized to be reliable by the head of a tax office on March 3, 200 (the head of a customs office in the case of the head of a customs office who takes charge of the affairs concerning national taxes under tax-related Acts; hereinafter the same shall apply) 7 cases of buildings, factory foundations, mining foundations, ships, aircraft, or construction machinery registered or recorded on June 7, 200 of the letter of guarantee for tax payment guarantee, which the head of a tax office recognizes to be reliable by the head of a tax office on June 5, 200. Thus, seeking the final satisfaction of a tax claim shall not be permitted by the method of establishing and exercising a tax claim must be limited to the Act, and it shall be strictly interpreted in accordance with the request of no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17274, Oct. 11, 196).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the security offered by the plaintiffs to the defendant upon filing an application for payment by annual installments is a deposit of KRW 157,724,100 which was made by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the reason that the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City accepted part of the land of this case as the land for the urban planning project (Tcheon - U.S. Connection Road Construction) and the deceased non-party's heir could not be known, and the compensation cannot be paid. In this case, since the deposit held by the plaintiffs is merely one of the documents proving the plaintiffs' claim for payment by annual installments against the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed as a state bond, local government bond, or securities, and it does not constitute any of the security listed in Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, even if the plaintiffs submitted the deposit of this case to the defendant as security, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs' application for payment by annual installments did not meet all the requirements for permission, and the judgment of the court below rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that the permission for payment by annual installments was unlawful.
In addition, the record reveals that the Plaintiff excluded the portion of the disposition imposing additional dues from the subject matter of the disposition imposing additional dues, while modifying the purport of the claim on the fifth day of pleading of the lower court. Thus, the Plaintiff is not separately determined on the grounds of appeal on
All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)