자기 명의로 금융거래가 가능함에도 차명예치금이라는 주장은 이유가 없음[국승]
early 201J 3221 ( November 10, 201)
Although it is possible to conduct financial transactions in his/her own name, there is no reason to believe that it is a borrowed deposit.
Although financial transactions are possible under his own name, it appears that there is no reasonable reason to deposit in the financial account under the name of the decedent, and the assertion that the claim is a borrowed deposit is not consistent by the reason that the claim is not consistent, such as the reversal of the simple deposit when the inheritance tax was filed and the appeal was filed at the time of filing the inheritance tax return
2012 Gohap762 Revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax
Lee Dong-A 2 other
Deputy Director of the Tax Office
October 26, 2012
November 16, 2012
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
On January 1, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing inheritance tax amounting to KRW 000,000 among the disposition of imposing inheritance tax against the Plaintiffs on January 1, 201, is revoked (for example, “1.8 and 000 won as stated in the written complaint” appears to be a clerical error).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Around December 2001, Plaintiff A received approximately KRW 000 of the total amount of Japaneseization from an insurance company on or after December 2, 2006, after taking a felbs from the felite due to vehicle uniforms in Japan. On September 16, 2008, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 00 to the new bank account (Account Number: 000), which is the father of thisCCC, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, the father of thisCC, transferred KRW 00 to the new bank account (Account Number: 00) in his own name on September 17, 2008, and the network DD invested in the fund (new subparagraph 2).
B. The Plaintiffs, the co-inheritors of the deceased on December 29, 2009, and the deceased on June 30, 2010, reported the amount of KRW 000 to the Defendant as the obligation against the Plaintiff of the deceased on June 30, 2010.
C. On January 1, 201, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiffs of KRW 000 of inheritance tax on the ground that “the amount of KRW 72,495,577, and the aggregate amount of KRW 000,00,000, which should be included in the inheritance tax base” (i.e., the amount of KRW 000 + KRW 000 + KRW 000) of the increased amount of the inherited property value and the excessive amount of the inheritance tax deduction (i.e., the remaining amount that has been reduced as described below, should be included in the inheritance tax base).
D. On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an objection against the above determination and notification with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not accept the vindication as to the above KRW 000, and did not accept only part of the vindication as to the amount of increase in the value of the above inherited property, and decided to set the amount of KRW 00,000 less than the above KRW 00,000 (=00 - 000) as inheritance tax base, thereby reducing the inheritance tax from the above KRW 00 to the above KRW 000.
E. On August 18, 201, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, asserting that “The amount of KRW 000 above is a debt under a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff E.A.” However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on the ground that “the amount of KRW 000 on November 10, 201 cannot be deemed as a debt of E.D.”
[Reasons for Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiffs' assertion
In light of the fact that Plaintiff AA deposit the above KRW 000 on the financial account in the name of the network, and that the network has not withdrawn or used it individually, and the above KRW 000 should be excluded from the inheritance tax base, since Plaintiff A’s borrowed-name deposit is not the trust property of the network, (i) it is not the trust property of the network, (ii) it should be excluded from the inheritance tax base (the Plaintiff filed a wrong report as to the obligation due to the non-performance of the inheritance tax law at the time of filing the inheritance tax return). Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Defendant included the above KRW
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
As seen earlier, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff appears to have no reasonable reason to deposit KRW 00 in the financial account under the name of the Plaintiff, even though it is possible to conduct financial transactions in his own name, and (ii) the Plaintiffs asserted that KRW 000 was the obligation of the Plaintiff A, at the time of filing an inheritance tax return on June 30, 2010 and August 18, 2011, at the time of filing a request for adjudication, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff A was the obligation of the Plaintiff BD, but the assertion was not consistent, such as the reversal of the assertion that it was a simple deposit, and (iii) the fact that the Plaintiff AD transferred KRW 00 to another account under its own name and used it in a way difficult to view it as a simple deposit, such as investing it in the fund assets with high risk of principal loss, and that the above 000 won cannot be considered as a simple deposit in the financial account under the name of the Plaintiff AD, and rather, the Plaintiff’s disposal should be included in this case’s inheritance tax base.
3. Conclusion
Then, the plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed due to the lack of reason, and they are judged as per Disposition.