2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s husband deceased on July 3, 2014 (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the father of the deceased’s husband B (the deceased on October 13, 1990) (hereinafter “the deceased”). The deceased’s heir is the deceased’s spouse D (the deceased on November 19, 2015), E, F and deceased’s heir, and the Plaintiff’s children G.

From July 6, 2016 to October 29, 2016, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation following the death of the deceased, and determined to pay KRW 3,674,90,372,80, out of KRW 1,146,372,804 of the total amount deposited in the account of the deceased within two years before the death of the deceased, on the ground that the use of KRW 1,146,372,804, out of the total amount deposited within 3,674,90,926, was unclear, and Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax Act”) and Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, after subtracting KRW 200,372,804 from the above amount pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant calculated the taxable value of inheritance tax and to pay the Plaintiff on December 14, 2016.

(B) On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff reported to waive the inheritance of the deceased and the deceased’s property on January 28, 2017, and received the repair decision on May 28, 2017.

【인정근거】 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1~6호증, 을 제1, 2호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지 이 사건 처분의 적법 여부 원고의 주장 원고는 남편 망 B이 사망한 후 아들 G와 생이별을 하고 시댁에서 쫓겨나 25년간 홀로 생계를 꾸리며 생활하였고, 망인으로부터 어떠한 재산도 받은 사실이 없으며, 망인 사망 후 적법하게 상속포기를 하였으므로, 이러한 원고에게 한 이 사건 처분은 실질과세의 원칙을 위반한 것으로서 그 하자가...