1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Appointer’s children of the Plaintiff and the Appointer’s H, the YY, and the EE Network T (hereinafter “the inheritee”), the Appointer’s wife is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff and the Appointer (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are the inheritors of the inheritee.

B. On November 28, 201, the inheritee died, and the Plaintiff et al. inherited the inheritee’s property.

C. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff et al.: (a) calculated the taxable value of inherited property derived from deducting the value of inherited property from the inherited property on the ground that at the time of the decedent’s death, the Plaintiff et al. was liable to the maximum Y, who was the birth of the largest H, for the debt of KRW 50 million; and (b) reported and paid KRW 263,94,290

D. On February 10, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Defendant’s obligation of the maximumY amounting to KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant obligation”) was not the obligation of the inheritee, and determined and notified KRW 24,941,930 of inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff et al. appealed to the Tax Tribunal on September 17, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The decedent is obligated to lend the total amount of KRW 50 million from KimY on May 3, 2001, and KRW 30 million on November 2, 2002, including KRW 50 million on November 2, 2002, and thus the decedent is obligated to pay the total amount of KRW 50 million, the above KRW 50 million should be deducted from the value of the inherited property as a inheritance obligation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As a matter of principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the value of inherited property, but a debt owed to a person other than the State, a local government, or a financial institution, who is a debt deducted from the value of inherited property, shall be proved by a document verifying the fact, such as a contract for debt burden, a creditor confirmation, a document evidencing the establishment of collateral, and a payment of interest, etc. under Article 14(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 10(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). According to Article 15(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a debtor shall be presumed to have no obligation.

2) At the time of the commencement of inheritance, the Plaintiff asserted that the decedent was liable for the maximum YY amounting to KRW 50 million, and that the letter (Evidence A 4) and written confirmation (Evidence A 5) written by the Y, the obligee, were presented. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the decedent was liable for the total amount of KRW 50 million for the Y at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence supporting this.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

(1) No loan certificate or debt-sharing contract has been made between the decedent and the maximum Y, no security has been made, and no money transaction has been verified by the document securing objectivity.

② Madices (Evidence 4 of A) and written confirmation (Evidence 5 of A) are written in writing, but it is difficult to recognize the identity of the body on the ground of the body as the body’s own pen. In light of the relations between the maximum Y and the Plaintiff, etc., it is difficult to believe the date and content of each written document as it is.

③ On May 3, 2001, the maximum Y deposited KRW 30 million with the first bank account of Hah’s Hah on May 3, 2001, and KRW 20 million with the National Bank account of Hah on November 22, 2002. The details of transfer of KRW 3 million from the first bank account of Hah’s Hah from July 4, 2001 to July 21, 2004 are confirmed. Meanwhile, at the time of deposit of money from the highest Y, the inheritee’s age was 666,67 years, and the inheritee’s age was 43 and 444 years, and the inheritee was engaged in the lease business since 194, not with its own account, but with its own interest accrued from H’s loan account, the Plaintiff did not reasonably explain the reasons.

④ After the death of an ancestor, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million with the largest Y on February 13, 2012. On November 2, 2013, it is confirmed that HH paid KRW 30 million to the largest Y on November 2, 2013. The Plaintiff asserted that the ancestor’s deposit property was repaid. However, at the time of the commencement of inheritance, there was KRW 279,037,326 of the decedent’s deposit property at the time of the commencement of inheritance. In addition, H and the highest H deemed that not only the decedent but also the selected H and the largest H had financial resources to repay the above loan in their name until the date of loan reaches about 10 years, the amount of money was paid KRW 20 million prior to the date of loan, and KRW 30 million was paid upon the commencement of an investigation into inheritance tax.

3. Conclusion

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