[행정처분취소][판례집불게재]
Kim Il-Du (Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Head of Namgu Tax Office
February 9, 1982
The Defendant notified the Plaintiff as of April 10, 1980, the part of the disposition of occasional transfer income tax of KRW 1,007,259 on the imposition of KRW 447,671 on the part of the disposition of KRW 1,67,259 on the transfer of land listed in the attached Table 1, and the part of the disposition of KRW 100,725 on the imposition of KRW 44,767 on the part of the disposition of KRW 10,984,362 on the imposition of KRW 4,881,939 on the part of the disposition of KRW 2,196,872 on the imposition of KRW 976,388 on the part of the disposition of KRW 10,72 on the transfer of land listed in the attached Table 2.
All remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed.
The lawsuit costs shall be divided into two parts, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.
The Defendant notified the Plaintiff as of April 10, 1980, the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,007,259 and its defense tax of KRW 100,725 due to the transfer of land listed in the attached Table 1, and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 10,984,362 and its defense tax of KRW 2,196,872 due to the transfer of land listed in the attached Table 2 shall be revoked in all of them.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Circumstances and details of the imposition;
In full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the evidence Nos. 1, 7, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 8-1, 4-1, 7, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 7-1, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-1, 7-1, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 1, 7-2, which are not disputed in the formation, the non-party Nos. 1, 23, and 2-4 of the year shall sell the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1975 to the same effect as the stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 4, 23, and 5-6 of the year and the final return on the tax base of the transfer income tax shall be determined by the plaintiff's transfer income tax, the income of the above land shall be determined by all of the plaintiff's separate transfer, 10-2, 10-14, 7.7.10
2. Assertion and determination
The Plaintiff’s legal representative first asserted that all the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 should be limited within the scope of the above inherited property, and that the deceased’s tax liability should be limited to the Plaintiff’s tax liability pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes because it is only 30,000, Daegu-gu, which is merely 30,000 won at the market price, and the Plaintiff’s inheritance from the deceased was not possible from May 8, 1975 due to transfer and disposal by the deceased’s own, or due to consumption of the expenses for treatment of new illness. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s aforementioned right to pay taxes should be limited within the scope of the above inherited property. As such, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned right to pay taxes cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the deceased’s private person, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to dispose of the property by way of inheritance or testimony as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 36 months before the death or death of the deceased.
Next, even if the above assertion is groundless, the plaintiff's legal representative asserts that the plaintiff's tax liability should be limited to the scope of inheritance shares as a matter of course because he had 2 South and North Korea as his lineal descendant at the time of the death of the above deceased. Thus, according to Article 24 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, "if there are 2 or more successors, each heir shall be liable to pay national taxes or additional dues and disposition fees for arrears which are calculated in proportion to his shares in accordance with Articles 1009, 1010 and 1012 of the Civil Act." The plaintiff's legal representative shall be liable to pay national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears calculated in proportion to his shares in accordance with Article 109, 1010 and 1012.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only for the part seeking the cancellation of the part exceeding the above amount recognized among the disposition imposing this case. Thus, it is unfair to accept this claim and the remaining claim is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
may 2, 1982
Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)
[Attachment Omission (Attachment 1 List, 2 List]