The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 154,155,560 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2008, which exceeds KRW 62,612,825, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and 60% is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 154,155,560 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2008.

A. The Plaintiff is the father of the father’s father who died on July 1, 2004 and the mother’s KimB who died on December 25, 2005.

B. Upon the death of AA, the Plaintiff, the co-inheritors, and the KimB, from among the inheritance tax of KRW 3,103,030,197, the inheritance tax of KRW 2,492,91,206, which was imposed on the inherited property, were inherited property, and the remaining KRW 610,038,991, which was paid as the inherited property of KimB.

C. Upon the death of KimB, on June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff, a sole heir, reported the taxable value of inherited property to the Defendant at KRW 1,423,125,109, and the calculated tax amount at KRW 169,950,026. On the other hand, the Plaintiff calculated the amount equivalent to the value of inherited property prior to the payment of the tax prior to the completion of inheritance (2,492,991,206) under Article 30 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "legal sheet") by calculating the "value of property prior to the completion of inheritance" under Article 30 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter referred to as "value of property prior to the expiration of the return amount of inherited property").

D. Accordingly, on December 30, 2003 and April 23, 2004, the defendant considers the sum of KRW 168,787,492 (hereinafter "the issues amount of this case") paid to the ASEAN as donated property prior to the death of KimB, as donated property, and determines the taxable value of inherited property by adding the value of inherited property to the value of inherited property as KRW 1,690,667,153 and adding the value of inherited property to the value of inherited property. (2) In calculating the value of inherited property under Article 30(3) of the Act, "the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax prior to the payment of inherited property" should be deducted from all "the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax prior to the payment of inherited property, regardless of whether it was inherited property." (114,392,870 among the above short-term inheritance property, the plaintiff shall be subject to a tax credit for inheritance, and the amount of tax to be imposed as additional tax to the plaintiff 15,1554,15

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence No. 1 to 3]

2. Relevant statutes, etc.

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Whether the dispute amount in this case is whether donated property is prior to donation; and

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case added to the value of inherited property is unlawful on December 1, 2003, because KimB partially repaid KRW 200,000,000 which he borrowed as interest without interest from Jeong on December 1, 2003.

(2) On December 1, 2003, Jung Jung cancelled the total of 400 million won of his own account of time deposit with the maturity of December 1, 2003, and paid KRW 200 million to KimB. The KimB opened two (2) 100 million in its own name on the same day, and deposited the said 200 million won by dividing the two (100 million) in its own account. The interest accrued from each of the above accounts by December 1, 2005 was transferred to a separate account opened by KimB until the maturity; KimB paid KRW 577,00,000,000 for the apartment sale under its name to its own account; on December 24, 2007, KimB paid KRW 200,000 to the Director of the Regional Tax Office of Seoul 30,000,000 won to the above bank account; on December 30, 2003, he paid KRW 300,784,208.

(3) Therefore, various circumstances revealed in the above facts, namely, KimB, on December 1, 2003, deposited KRW 200,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff in its own name and did not have been used for any other purpose. On the other hand, merely borrowing money to South Korea for the purpose of preserving the term deposit. On the other hand, if it was only for the purpose of acquiring the term deposit interest, it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff’s lending of money to the wife by opening another account in lieu of the existing term deposit with maturity, and there is no evidence to view that there was a lending relationship between the Plaintiff’s own lending terms and conditions, and KimB did not have any interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free.

B. Interpretation of Article 30 of the Act, "tax credit on inheritance entered in a single entry"

(1) Article 30(3) of the Act provides that "property value of the previous inherited property" shall be deducted from "property value of the previous inherited property". In applying the above provision uniformly, the heir who defaulted in the previous inherited property recognized the entire value of the previous inherited property as property value of the property value of the previous inherited property and increased the amount of tax credit due to short-term reconstruction. However, since the heir who has paid the previous inherited property is recognized as property value of the previous inherited property only as property value of the previous inherited property and the amount of tax credit due to short-term reconstruction is reduced due to reduced amount of tax credit due to the previous inherited property, the heir who has paid the inheritance tax shall not be deducted from the amount of the previous inherited property in calculating the value of the property of the property of the previous inherited property if the heir paid the previous inherited property with the previous inherited property, the amount of the inheritance tax shall not be deducted from the amount of the property value of the previous inherited property in calculating the value of the property of the property of the previous inherited property. Therefore, in this case, separate from the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax paid with Kim Young-do's proprietary property, the amount calculated by subtracting 294.

(2) However, the tax credit system for short-term re-Succession under Article 30 of the Act was prepared in order to prevent the value of the inherited property from significantly decreasing by repeating the short-term inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du11196, Jul. 9, 2004). Article 30(1) and (2) of the Act explicitly provides for the principle that the amount of the inherited property before re-inherited shall be deducted from the amount of the inheritance tax calculated where inheritance tax is re-scheduled within 10 years after the commencement of the inheritance and the formula for claiming the amount of the tax to be deducted, and Article 30(3) of the Act explicitly provides that the "value of the re-inherited" of the formula shall be "value of the inherited property before deducting the amount of the inheritance tax amount

Article 30(3) of the above Act was amended by Act No. 6780 on Dec. 18, 2002. This is a provision newly established only with the amendment of Act No. 6780 on Dec. 18, 2002. This is to maintain equity by specifying the amount of tax deducted due to short-term inheritance, and to eliminate unnecessary disputes arising from the application of the law related to the concept of "property value of the amount of tax calculated" in relation to the concept of "property of the amount of tax calculated", regardless of whether the heir has paid unpaid inheritance tax or paid it as the heir's proprietary property in order to prevent the artificial increase of "property value of the previous inheritance" by failing to pay "amount equivalent to the previous inheritance tax", or by paying it as the heir's proprietary property.

In light of such legislative intent, it is reasonable to regard the value of the re-Succession as having been paid from the previous inherited property regardless of which property was actually paid out of the previous inherited property and the proprietary property of the heir, and calculates the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax before deducting the amount of the previous inherited property from the value of the previous inherited property. If the inheritance tax was paid with the previous inherited property as alleged by the Plaintiff, the non-deduction of the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax would be contrary

Meanwhile, the National Tax Service’s established rules claiming that the Plaintiff is consistent with his/her own assertion that “where it is clearly confirmed that the remaining property after having paid the inheritance tax imposed on the previous inherited property is re-inherited, the amount equivalent to the previous inheritance tax shall not be deducted from the value of the property of the re-inherited” (Article 30(3) of the Act, which provides that the value of the property after having paid the previous inherited property shall not be deducted from the value of the previous inherited property, since the value of the property after having paid the inheritance tax on the previous inherited property is deducted from the value of the inherited property, the value of the property after having paid the inheritance tax on the previous inherited property shall not be deducted from the value of the previous inherited property. Therefore, the value of the property after having paid the inheritance tax on the previous inherited property shall not be deducted from the value of the previous inherited property.

(3) Therefore, in the formula of Article 30(2)1 of the Act, the "value of the inherited property" means that the "value of the inherited property before being paid the inheritance tax" is deducted from the "value of the inherited property before being paid, and if paid, the "total amount equivalent to the previous inheritance tax" regardless of whether it was paid with the inherited property of the heir. Thus, the instant disposition that calculated the tax credit amount for the short-term inherited property by such method is legitimate.

(c) Calculation of legitimate inheritance tax amount;

Article 30(3) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act [the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, Dec. 15, 196; Presidential Decree No. 1996, Dec. 15, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 19935, Dec. 196; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Dec. 13, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 1969, Nov. 16, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 19655, Dec. 22, 1994; Presidential Decree No. 19657, Feb. 19, 196; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 19, 196]

However, Article 30(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1196, Jul. 9, 2004) merely provides that "the value of the previous inherited property" shall be deemed "the value of the previous inherited property, which is the value equivalent to the value of the inherited property." Moreover, the short-term amount of the tax credit for inherited property shall be the tax amount equivalent to the ratio of the value of the inherited property to the value of the previous inherited property to the value of the inherited property among the calculated value of the previous inherited property. Furthermore, the taxable value of the inherited property shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the previous inherited property by the ratio of the value of the previous inherited property to the value of the inherited property to the value of the previous inherited property at the time of the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1196, Jul. 9, 204). In calculating the value of the inherited property, the "value of the previous inherited property" refers to the value of the inherited property at the time of the previous inherited property.

Therefore, if "the value of the previous inherited property" is calculated by deducting "the equivalent amount of the previous inherited property" from the amount of KRW 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 62,612,825 of the Disposition in this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal, and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above revocation part among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part exceeding KRW 62,612,825 of the Disposition in this case shall be revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.