5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment of the complaint;

It shall pay the money.

BB The Director of the Tax Office is the filing deadline for the inheritance tax base following the death of the deceased.

On July 9, 2015, which was over three years from March 31, 2011, the previous Framework Act on National Taxes after filing a request for inheritance tax correction on July 9, 2015.

The time limit for filing an application for rectification under Act No. 12848 of December 23, 2014 has expired.

Therefore, Defendant BB Tax Office’s rejection notice is subject to appeal litigation.

Therefore, the plaintiffs asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) A request for correction filed after the expiration of the period for filing a request for correction is unlawful and tax base by the tax authority.

Since there is no obligation to decide or correct the amount of tax and to take the disposition of refusal, the tax authority shall rectify it.

Even if a refusal is rejected, it shall not be deemed a rejection disposition subject to an appeal litigation (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44830 Decided March 12, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27183 Decided December 11, 2014

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1489 decided May 1, 20

An act of refusing to do an act constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation;

In order to be called, there is the right to request the citizen to act in accordance with the laws and regulations or cooking.

must have the right to file a claim for rectification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12469, Feb. 25, 2005).

If the tax authority does not reject a request for correction of a taxpayer, etc., the tax authority shall reject the request.

Even if they were subject to appeal litigation, they shall not be considered as a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation (the foregoing).

Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27183, Supreme Court Decision 98Du9608 Decided July 23, 1999, etc.

2) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same)

A person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return under Article 45-2 (1) 1 shall be the tax base.

Tax base and tax amount to be reported under tax-related Acts;

more than three years after the statutory due date of return elapses, the initial return and revision to the head of the competent tax office;

A request for correction of the tax base and amount of national taxes reported: Provided, That the determination or correction shall be made;

With respect to increased tax bases and amounts due to such disposition, within 90 days after the person became aware of such disposition.

(only within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses) provides that "it may be requested for correction."

In addition, Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the period for filing an application for rectification shall be December 23, 2014.

As amended by 12848, "five years" was changed to "five years," but Articles 1 and 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act.

section 45-2(1) of the amended Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2015, and prior to its enforcement, it shall comply with the preceding section of section 45-2(1).

Notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 45-2 (1), the previous provisions shall apply to the portion for which the period for request expires.

The former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Law No. 15, Dec. 15, 2015) provides that the Act shall be amended by Act No. 1358, Dec

According to Article 67(1) of the Inheritance Tax Liability Act (amended by Act No. 1357)

In the case of a person or testamentary donee, within six months from the last day of the month to which the date of commencing the inheritance belongs

The amount and tax base shall be reported to the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.

3) Based on the above legal principles and regulations, the health team and the deceased’s death on the instant case

The statutory due date of return of the tax base of inheritance tax is March 31, 2011; and three years from the plaintiffs' objection;

In July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a claim for revision of inheritance tax on July 9, 2015. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims are as above.

The request for the above correction is unlawful as it is made after the period for request expires, and is against the defendant's Seongbuk.

Even if the chief of a tax office refuses it, it is a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant BB director is unlawful, and the defendant Seongbuk-do office is illegal.

The main defense of the Speaker is justified.

4. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

가. 국세기본법 제51조 제1항은, '세무서장은 납세의무자가 국세��가산금 또는 체납

Amount paid by mistake or in excess of the amount paid as disposal expenses or tax-related Acts;

Tax amount to be refunded pursuant to tax-related Acts (where any amount of tax to be deducted from a refund under tax-related Acts exists,

(1) If there is any balance remaining after the deduction, the amount paid by mistake immediately and the amount in excess;

(b) that the tax amount paid or refunded should be determined as a refund of national tax;

The term "misely paid amount" refers to a declaration that forms the basis for the payment or collection.

(in the case of a tax return) or a disposition of imposition (in the case of a tax imposition) is nonexistent or void automatically.

The amount of tax paid or collected by the Gu and the amount of tax paid or collected, and the amount paid in excess (the amount paid in excess) shall be the same.

report or disposition is not void as a matter of course, but is subject to revocation or rectification thereafter.

The term "tax amount to be refunded" means the tax amount to be paid or collected lawfully, but such amount has been paid or collected lawfully;

amount of tax to be refunded under each individual tax law because the State has no reasonable ground to hold it;

means the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da31768, Mar. 26, 2009).

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that they overpaid or erroneously paid the inheritance tax of KRW 000,000 in total

In this case, the plaintiffs sought the refund of the above amount to the public office, but in this case the plaintiffs are against the director of the tax office

(1) The part seeking revocation of the decision to refuse to revise the inheritance tax is unlawful, as seen earlier, and the

in the absence of a report, which served as the basis for the payment of the inheritance tax of this case, or is not deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

In addition, the plaintiffs' report of inheritance of this case is revoked or corrected after the plaintiffs' report of inheritance of this case.

Since there is no fee, the plaintiffs' claims for this part need to further examine the remainder of the claims.

without reason.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant BB Head of the tax office is dismissed, and the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant

The claim against the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The head of the competent tax office on January 1, 201 x 200 x. x. The rejection disposition of inheritance tax correction against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2. The defendant Republic of Korea shall each of the plaintiffs 00,000,000 won x 20 x x x 10 x x 1.

A. The Plaintiffs, as the inheritors of Nonparty 100 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), were the deceased 20 x 1 x 20 x x. The Plaintiffs died. The Plaintiffs x 20 x x.. x x 8 x (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) reported the inheritance tax and tax standards (the tax amount to be paid 0,000,000,000) with respect to the inherited property including the 00:0 00 Dong-gu 00 and 00-1 and 8 parcels (hereinafter referred to as “each land”). (hereinafter referred to as “the instant inheritance tax declaration”).

B. In the process of selling each of the instant lands by entrustment to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the appraisal corporation assessed the value of each of the instant lands in total at KRW 0,000,000,000. On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a request for correction of inheritance tax with the head of Defendant BB tax office for correction of the inheritance tax amount at KRW 0,00,000 based on the market value of each of the instant lands as the market value of each of the instant lands. However, the said Defendant filed a request for correction of inheritance tax with the head of Defendant BB tax office to rectify the inheritance tax amount at KRW 0,00,000

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on April 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the plaintiffs' action against the defendant BB director is legitimate

A. The main safety defense of Defendant BB director of the tax office