상속협의해제를 원인으로 경정등기한 것은 증여에 해당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap27667 ( October 10, 2012)
Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2741 ( October 27, 2011)
by reason of cancellation of inheritance consultation shall be deemed to constitute the donation.
(1) In light of the fact that no measure is taken after the initial registration of the land inherited, the evidence and testimony submitted cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the transfer income tax exemption benefits are arbitrarily registered, and the registration of correction is made on the ground of revocation of inheritance consultation.
2012Nu7723 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Maximum XX 4 others
The Head of Gangwon Tax Office and two others
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap27667 decided February 10, 2012
September 27, 2012
October 25, 2012
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the director of the tax office of Gangseo-gu shall be revoked. On August 1, 2010, the imposition of KRW 000 of the gift tax made by the director of the tax office to Plaintiff LA, KRW 000 of the gift tax made to Plaintiff LB, and each imposition of KRW 000 of the gift tax made to Plaintiff LAB on November 10, 2010, each imposition of KRW 00 of the gift tax made to Defendant LA and ED by the director of the tax office of Seocheon-gu, and the head of the tax office of Defendant Cheong-ju on December 2, 2010 shall revoke the imposition of KRW 00 of the gift tax made to the Plaintiff E (the penalty
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs, even in the appellate court, have registered the original registration of this case as the inheritance by Nonparty F alone with respect to the land of this case, but this FF voluntarily completed the original registration of this case against the agreement with the plaintiffs, co-inheritors, in consideration of all the circumstances, the plaintiffs asserted that the initial registration of this case cannot be deemed as the inheritance registration for which the shares of inheritance between the plaintiffs and the FF are confirmed, and that the disposition of this case based on other premise should be revoked.
Article 31(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “The share of each heir was determined by the inheritance after the commencement of inheritance and the transfer of title to the land of this case, and the property acquired in excess of the original share of inheritance by division among co-inheritors is included in the property donated to the heir whose share of inheritance was reduced by division, and thus, it would be applicable to the cases where the heir’s share of inheritance was re-divided by separate agreement between the heir and the deceased’s share of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du441, Jul. 12, 2002). The above provision was no different from that of the deceased’s first instance court’s first instance court on the land, and thus, it appears that the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s judgment on the land that the deceased’s first instance court’s first instance court’s new judgment on the inheritance.