2...

A. On March 29, 2015, the heir, including the Plaintiff, reported and paid inheritance tax on September 30, 2015, the value of the inherited property was assessed as “(0)” on the ground that: (a) the inheritance was actually used as a road; (b) the value of the inherited property, among the inherited property, is not worth property at the time of commencing the inheritance, on the ground that: (c) the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City C large 360 square meters, D large 176 square meters, and E 9 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each lot number; and (d) the common name thereof was used as a road.

B. From June 16, 2016 to August 24, 2016, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation with respect to the deceased’s inheritors, and determined that the instant land was included in the FFFF promotion zone and the publicly assessed individual land price was publicly announced annually, and thus, cannot be deemed as real estate without property value.

Accordingly, on November 3, 2016, the Defendant assessed the instant land as the officially assessed individual land price at the time of commencing the inheritance, and imposed KRW 114,024,330 (including additional taxes) on the Plaintiff on November 3, 201

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the land was donated to G before the deceased’s birth. At the time, G reported and paid gift tax amounting to KRW 195,030,000 with the value of donated property donated to G at the time. However, upon filing a request for correction after filing a request for correction, the amount of the donated property was reduced by the amount of KRW 61,578,000 from the Director of the Maak Tax Office on December 4, 2008.

Thus, the appraisal of E land at the time of December 4, 2008 is finalized, and the disposition of this case was conducted by adding the above appraised value to the taxable value of inherited property.

Therefore, the part related to the land E in the disposition of this case should be disputed only within the scope of invalidation because the period for filing a lawsuit already exceeds the period for filing a lawsuit, and it cannot be claimed for revocation.

(b) judgment 1: Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;