2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

On January 3, 2018, the defendant confirmed on January 3, 2018 that each disposition of x, x, x, xx, and gift tax (including penalty tax) x, x, x, and xx, imposed on the plaintiff is all null and void.

A. 00 and Kim 00 were married to have 00, 000, 000 △△△△△, and 00 △△△△△△, and the Plaintiff married and had △△△△△△△△△△ and the Plaintiff in a white line.

B. The 00 died of x.x., Kim 00 from 201x.x.x., from 201x.x.x. (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). Before that, the 00 △△△△△△△△△ died on x.x.x.x., the Plaintiff, the heir of 00 △△△△△△△△△△△△, and the deceased’s succession to 00 and the deceased’s substitute.

C. If the deceased’s heir did not report inheritance tax, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation following the deceased’s death from x.x. to x.x. From 201x.x. From 201x.x.x.x.x,x,x,x, andx, which were released from the deceased’s deposit account within two years before the deceased’s death, were unclear purposes, Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1357 of Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and imposed additional tax on the deceased’s heir’s total amount of tax to be paid, including the amount of additional tax to be imposed on the deceased’s total amount of tax to be paid, 200,000x, xx, x, and 201x.

D. Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) donated cash X,xx,xx, andxxx to the deceased on December x, 201x; and (b) deemed that the deceased’s inheritors succeeded to the obligation to pay gift taxx,xx, andxxxx (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the said cash donation pursuant to Article 24 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the deceased’s successors succeeded to the obligation to pay the said cash donation; (b) designated the inheritors on December x, 201 as joint taxpayers; and (c) determined and notified the total tax amount to be paid by the inheritors; and (d) determined and notified the total tax amount to X,xx,xx, andxxx (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff”).

E. On x. x. x. 201x. x. the Plaintiff filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance on the property of the deceased and 000, with the Seoul Family Court, and the report was accepted on x. x. 201x.

F. On the ground of Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1041 Decided May 23, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1041 Decided that “A person who has lawfully waived inheritance shall not be included in “he heir” under Article 24(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes who succeeds to the obligation to pay national taxes, etc. of the inheritee,” the Defendant revoked ex officio the designation of a joint and several taxpayers with respect to the deceased’s gift tax and the imposition of the gift tax of this case against the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant, ex officio, revoked the disposition imposing gift tax of this case, and asserted that there is no benefit to the lawsuit.

B. If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du15343, Oct. 13, 201).

C. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the designation of a joint and several tax obligor for the deceased’s gift tax and the imposition of the gift tax in this case against the Plaintiff on x. x. x. x. 201x. As such, the part claiming the revocation of the gift tax in this case regarding the claim for revocation of the imposition of gift tax in this case is to seek revocation of the unexplicied disposition, and there is no benefit

3. Whether the disposition of inheritance tax of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of inheritance tax of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and its defect is serious and clear, and is void as a matter of course.

1) 원고는 남편 백△△이 199x. xx. xx. 사망한 후 시부모와의 갈등으로 시댁에서 쫓겨나 xx년 동안 시댁과 인연을 끊은 채 홀로 생활하였고, 망인으로부터 어떠한 재산도 받은 사실이 없으며, 망인이 사망한 후 적법하게 상속을 포기하였는바, 이 사건 상속세 부과처분은 실질과세의 원칙에 위배된다(제1주장).

2) Within two years prior to the deceased’s death, the Defendant imposed the instant inheritance tax on the premise that the location of the use of thex,x,x,x,x, andxx that was withdrawn from the deceased’s deposit account, and on the premise that the location of the use of thex,x,x,x,x, andx is unclear, the Defendant’s assertion that the above place of use of thex,x,x,x, andx is unclear is difficult to believe it as it is (Chapter 2).

3) Since there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting the duty of return and payment of inheritance tax, the imposition of penalty tax by the Defendant is unlawful (section 3).

(b) Relevant statutes: Omitted;

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an unlawful ground for the disposition is insufficient. The defect is objectively clear and objectively in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which form the basis for the taxation disposition, from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself. From this perspective, although there is a significant and apparent defect in the taxation disposition against a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations which are subject to taxation, if it can be found only when the factual basis is examined about a certain legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the Plaintiff of the requirement for taxation is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 199; 201Du31939, Feb. 13, 20192).

2) Determination as to Claims 1 and 2

A) Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that a person who has renounced inheritance pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act shall be deemed to include the scope of “he inheritor” and is obligated to pay inheritance tax on the basis of the property either received or received among inherited property by the heir. In addition, Article 15(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the amount received by the decedent by disposing of the property or withdrawn from the property of the decedent is at least 200,000,000 by the type of property within one year before the date the inheritance commences, and where the use is calculated by the type of property within two years before the date the inheritance commences, and the amount is at least 50,000,000,000 by the type of property and is objectively unclear, the heir shall be presumed to have inherited property and be included in the taxable value of inherited property. As such, the tax authority has de facto converted the burden of proof to prevent unjust mitigation of inheritance tax by donation or inheritance in cash.

B) Therefore, even if the disposition of inheritance tax in this case is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff actually received prior gift property from the deceased as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes an objective circumstance that could mislead the Plaintiff to be subject to taxation on legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation, and thus, it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation, and thus, the defect in the disposition of inheritance tax in this case is apparent.

C) According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 12, from the deceased's bank account within two years prior to the deceased's death, the members of X,x,x,x, andx were released. Among the above withdrawn amounts, the purpose of use of X,x,x,x, andxx is objectively unclear, such as where the opposite contractual party to the X,x,x,x, andxx is not confirmed. Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, the above purport of use of X,x,x,x, andx, has the burden of proof against the inheritor, including the plaintiff. However, as long as the plaintiff fails to prove its purpose, the presumption that the heir was inherited is not broken, the disposition of the inheritance tax of this case cannot be deemed unlawful.

3) Determination as to the third proposal

Even if there is a justifiable ground that could not be caused by the Plaintiff’s neglect of the duty to report and pay the inheritance tax, as alleged by the Plaintiff, this constitutes a case where it can be found that there is an objective circumstance that may mislead the Plaintiff to believe that the legal relations or factual relations not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and whether it is subject to taxation can only be verified by the accurate investigation of the factual relations. Thus, it cannot be said that the defect is apparent.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, since the imposition of inheritance tax of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of gift tax imposition among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the remaining claims of the plaintiff are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.