2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 22,949,823 of the additional tax on negligent return of inheritance tax and KRW 32,366,391 of the additional tax on negligent return of inheritance tax, which the Plaintiff made against the Plaintiff as of May 2, 2008, shall be revoked (the Plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

A. Plaintiff’s return of inheritance tax

On May 7, 2005, the Plaintiff’s father (the father) died on May 7, 2005. On November 7, 2005, the Plaintiff, the inheritor of the Deceased, filed an inheritance tax return with the Defendant on the taxable value of KRW 1,41,894,107, the tax base of KRW 725,846,391, the tax base of KRW 725,846,391, the tax amount of KRW 141,978,526.

B. Imposition of inheritance tax by the defendant

1) The initial disposition dated May 2, 2008

On May 2, 2008, the defendant under-reported 34,956,00 won for under-reported deposit balance of our bank, and 373,828,130 won for pre-donation property within five years prior to the commencement of the inheritance (in the case of a bank from May 13, 2003 to May 23, 2003), 31,760,000 won for non-sale property (real estate) within one and two years prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and 471,843,180 won for non-sale property within two years prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and imposed on the plaintiff the additional tax for negligent return, 37,492,280 won, additional tax for negligent payment, 89,189,630 won, including additional tax for negligent payment, 45,830 won,85,830 won for inheritance tax.

2) Disposition of reduction or correction as of July 8, 2008

On July 8, 2008, the defendant deducted the amount of 471,843,180 won from the taxable value of property not disposed of (the withdrawn amount from a bank) within 1,2 years prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and added the amount of 447,195,89 won (the withdrawn from a bank between October 6, 2003 and October 29, 2004) to the taxable value within 5 years prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and deducted the amount of 68,071,049 won from the amount of 68,049 won from the amount of miscellaneous property included in the above additional disposition, and corrected the amount of 9,94,458 won (including additional taxes) from the original disposition.

3) Disposition of second reduction reduction on August 27, 2008

On August 27, 2008, the defendant deducted 311,760,000 won from the taxable value of the non-dispositiond property (real estate) within 1,208 before the commencement of the inheritance, and then revised the amount of 169,775,140 won (including additional tax) from the original disposition.

4) Final details of taxation

As of May 2, 2008, the defendant finally included 34,956,00 won under-reported deposit balance of our bank, 821,024,029 won [the amount of prior donation property within five years prior to the commencement of the inheritance] from May 13, 2003 to October 29, 2004 =37,828,130 won (the amount between May 13, 2003 and May 23, 2003) + 447,195,89 won (the amount of additional tax for unfaithful return from 203,000 won to 29,000 won) and the additional tax for unfaithful return from 203,000 won (the amount of additional tax for unfaithful return from October 6, 2003 to 29, the amount of additional tax for unfaithful return was reduced to 205,130,194,205,29,304,294,7.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant key money source was donated in advance to the BB, and it cannot be confirmed even through the Plaintiff’s comprehensive account inquiry with respect to the deceased. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff cannot be found to have breached its duty.

2) Although gift tax, including additional tax on negligent tax returns, was imposed on the key money source in the instant case, the Defendant’s imposition of additional tax again in the instant disposition is erroneous.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, administrative sanctions imposed under the law may not be imposed where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the taxpayer’s breach of such duties, such as where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005). However, the fact that the inheritor was unaware of the existence of property, such as real estate, of the inheritee at the time of his/her death cannot be deemed as having caused the inheritor’s breach of such duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10289, Feb. 12, 2009).

Meanwhile, Article 13(1)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax Act") provides that the value of property donated to a person who is not an heir within five years before the date inheritance commences shall be added to the taxable value of inherited property. Article 15(1)1 of the same Act provides that the value of property donated to a person who is not an heir shall be added to the taxable value of inherited property. Article 15(1)2 of the same Act provides that where the amount disposed of by an ancestor or withdrawn from an ancestor's property is calculated within one year before the date inheritance commences and the amount is calculated as 50 million won or more by the category of property within two years before the date inheritance commences, and where the use thereof is not objectively clear, it shall be presumed that the amount is inherited, and Article 13(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the aggregate of money donated by an ancestor is objectively less than 100 billion won and less than the taxable value of inherited property.

B) According to the evidence No. 1, No. 2, 4, 7, and 11 through 13 regarding the instant case, the Plaintiff, as a U.S. national, entered the Republic of Korea on April 25, 2005, immediately before the deceased’s death. On Nov. 7, 2005, the Plaintiff reported and paid inheritance tax based on the deposit balance, etc. on the deceased’s name. On Jan. 17, 2008, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit evidence as to the place of use of the deceased’s account at the financial institution, including the key money of this case, etc. No. 1, which was not known to the Plaintiff at the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed as having been aware of the facts that the Plaintiff did not report to the Plaintiff on the remaining amount of donated property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed as having been aware of the issues of this case’s gift tax evasion in the title of the Bank.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Article 78(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that when the head of a tax office, etc. makes a report on inherited property less than the tax base to be reported within the reporting deadline, the amount of tax calculated by a certain method shall be added to the amount of tax calculated, which is not reported under the Presidential Decree due to the difference in appraised values of the reported property (subparagraph 1), the amount not determined as inherited property due to such reasons as a lawsuit on ownership, etc. (subparagraph 2), and the amount not reported under the proviso of Article 78(1) of the same Act (subparagraph 3). Article 80(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the amount of tax to be reported under the main sentence of the part other than each subparagraph of Article 78(1) of the same Act shall include the amount that falls short of the tax base determined under Article 76

B) As to the instant case, even if the Defendant imposed gift tax on the amount corresponding to the instant key money source by adding additional tax on negligent tax returns on negligent tax returns, such reason does not fall under each subparagraph of Article 78(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. As seen earlier, if the Plaintiff omitted the report on the instant key money source, which is included in the taxable value of inherited property at the time of filing the inheritance tax return, it constitutes an amount of under-reported amount under Article 78(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and thus, it constitutes an amount of under-reported amount under Article 78(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and thus, additional tax on inheritance can be imposed

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition (* The judgment of this case was written on November 12, 2010).