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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence 5:

A. On June 24, 2003, the Plaintiff inherited 15.75/9 (hereinafter “instant inherited land shares”) out of the ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong 257.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff’s father, who died on June 24, 2003, and assessed the share value of the instant inherited land as KRW 626,115,000 based on the standard market price, and then filed a tax base return on December 23, 2003 with the taxable value of inherited property as KRW 1,106,848,169.

B. The Defendant denied KRW 626,115,00,00 of the inherited property value of the inherited land shares reported by the Plaintiff according to the method of assessment based on the standard market price. On September 10, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to rectify the tax base and tax amount of the inheritance tax by correcting the tax base and tax amount of the inheritance tax, such as adding the difference between the value reported by the Plaintiff to KRW 852,039,434, and the value of the inherited property value of KRW 27,545,50,00,00, in view of the co-owner’s co-owner’s co-owner’s co-owner’s co-owner’s share in the instant land transferred to a third party on December 24, 2003, in view of the co-owned share value of the instant land and the co-owned share value of the building in the instant case.

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on October 19, 2004, but was dismissed. On February 14, 2005, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal for adjudication on February 14, 2005, but the appeal was dismissed on September 13, 2005.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the exemption from inheritance tax on the war dead, etc. (hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) shall be interpreted in a combined manner so that the purpose of the legislation can be realized. Thus, it shall include all cases of death of an injury or disease inflicted during the Korean War. Article 12(3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State of Distinguished Services to the State provides that where a person who falls under the disability rating prescribed by the Presidential Decree is killed or wounded in action, his/her bereaved family shall be paid the pension only when he/she died of the injury or disease. Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "if a person who has been killed or wounded in action dies, one of the bereaved family members of the first priority who shall be paid the pension shall be determined differently as the amount of disability rating or higher: Provided, That where a person falling under Grade 6 is deceased due to reasons other than that of disability rating, his/her bereaved family shall be determined differently.

In addition, Article 18 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the property rights of taxpayers shall not be unfairly infringed in light of the equity of taxation and the purpose of the relevant provision." Therefore, considering the equity of taxation and the consistency of the purpose of the enactment of the Act, the "Death caused by public duties" under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should be interpreted and applied in the same manner as Article 12 (3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State

Therefore, in compiling the aforementioned relevant provisions, the death of the deceased falling under Class 3 of the disability rating constitutes death caused by an injury or disease sustained during the performance of a war, and thus becomes subject to non-taxation of inheritance tax under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(2) Although the instant land is registered as the co-ownership of the deceased and Kim○, etc. in the registry of the register, in fact, the deceased and Kim○○ are divided by the title of the instant land on the ground of the building, and their rights and duties are also separately exercised. Thus, the instant inherited land shares are assessed separately from the property of Kim○○, and the value of inherited property is assessed separately from the property of Kim○○, but the instant disposition in which Kim○-○’s co-ownership

(b) Related statutes;

○ Non-taxation on the war dead, etc. under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(1) In case where inheritance commences due to death in action, or other similar death, or death caused by an injury or disease sustained in the course of performing official duties in a war or other equivalent official duties, the inheritance

(2) The scope of public duties corresponding to the death or war under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

(1) The value of property on which an inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date the inheritance commences or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal").

(2) The market price referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the price which is deemed to be normal in cases of free trade between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the price of confinement and public auction, appraisal price, and others recognized as the market price, as prescribed by

Article 7 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Death, etc.

Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177 of Dec. 30, 2003)

(1) "A war or other official duties corresponding to it" in Article 11 (1) of the Act means the performance of operational duties, such as soil punishment or guard, etc., due to a war, an incident or other similar emergency.

(2) "Death equivalent to death in the line of duty" in Article 11 (2) of the Act means death in the line of duty under paragraph (1).

Article 49 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(1) For the purpose of Article 60 (2) of the Act, the term "those recognized as the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation or public auction price, the appraised price, etc." means, in cases of sale, appraisal, expropriation or public auction (referring to an auction under the Civil Procedure Act; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) or public auction within six months (three months in cases of donated property) before or after the base date of appraisal, the amount verified pursuant to the provisions of any of

1. If the fact of sale and purchase of the relevant property exists, the transaction value: Provided, That this shall not apply where the transaction value is deemed objectively unfair, such as transactions with persons with a special relationship provided for in Article 26 (4);

C. Determination

(1) Whether the deceased’s death constitutes “the death caused by an injury or disease during the war” under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and constitutes a non-taxation object of inheritance tax.

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the deceased is recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State who was killed and wounded in Grade 3 on June 24, 2003 as a person of distinguished service to the State, who was killed and wounded in Grade 3 on his disability rating, as a prior death on June 24, 2003.

However, Article 12(3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, stipulate the criteria for the payment of pension to their bereaved family members according to the disability rating, and accordingly, requires their bereaved family members to be paid pension regardless of the cause of their death. In the case of inheritance due to their death, it cannot be deemed that the deceased is subject to non-taxation of inheritance tax under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act because the deceased died of the injury. In addition, there is no ground to view that the legislative purpose differs from the legislative purpose and it is unreasonable to equally interpret and apply the provisions of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which are not directly related to each other under the principle of no taxation without the law, and the interpretation of the tax law should not be allowed.

(2) In assessing the shares in the inherited land of this case, whether it is legitimate to take the transfer value of the shares in this case as business example.

In full view of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the deceased’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the ownership of the deceased’s land at the time of the death of the deceased is 15.75/9 of 257 and the ownership of 102.15/9 of the land at the time of the death of the deceased’s 257, and the ownership of 3rd and 3rd and upper floors above the ground of this case’s ground No. 1, 300, 2, and 400, 300, 200, 300, 40, 200, 300, 3,000, 2,000, 3,000,000,000 won or more of the deceased’s share on the ground of this case’s land and the building’s share on November 14, 2003.

According to the above facts, since the land of this case was owned by the deceased 3,00, and it is difficult to view that the shares of the plaintiff 2,00 won in the inherited land shares of this case and the shares of co-ownership among the land of this case 3,00,000 won are different from the shares of the deceased 1,00,000 won. Meanwhile, the transfer time, circumstances and amount of the above land and the building above, in particular, the transfer to Kim ○ and the plaintiff 1,730,000 won in the form of collective transaction in the situation where the transfer to 3,00 won was in close vicinity to the same buyer through the same broker, each transfer value of the above 1,081,30,000 won + 1,081,30,000,000 won in the real value of the land of this case 4,000 won in the sale and sale of the land of this case, which is equivalent to the shares of the plaintiff 2,005,7,005.7.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.