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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of KRW 000,000, which was made on March 1, 2016 against the Plaintiffs, in excess of KRW 000, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiffs are the successors of AA (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died on September 3, 2014, and Plaintiff BB is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff AB, AB,CC, AD, and AE.

B. On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs reported and paid KRW 0,000 of inheritance tax calculated by deducting the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount of KRW 0,000,000 from the inheritance deduction amount of KRW 0,583 square meters (hereinafter “instant expropriation compensation”) to the effect that “0,000,000 per annum 2,100,000,000 per annum 277-2,583 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) were inherited property, and the remainder was inherited by Plaintiff BB, who is the head of the deceased.”

C. ① The Defendant is not a claim for expropriation of each of the instant lands, but a claim for expropriation of each of the instant lands, and the Plaintiff AB inherited each of the instant lands independently, and there is no property inherited by the Plaintiff BB. Therefore, the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount should be deemed as KRW 500 million, which is the minimum deduction amount, and the spouse’s inheritance deduction for each of the instant lands (=00 won - 500 million), should be denied. ② The additional compensation amount for each of the instant lands and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000, was included in the taxable value of inheritance tax on March 9, 2016.

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 12, 2016, but was dismissed on September 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 9, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(i)the specification of inherited property;

Even if the registration of the real estate actually disposed of by the sales contract, etc. before the commencement of the inheritance remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, such registration

00 urban construction works obtained project approval from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 5, 2013 under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Compensation Act”) prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, and accordingly, on June 5, 2014, each of the instant lands was planned to be expropriated as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, including the commencement of the compensation consultation procedure for each of the instant lands, and thus, each of the instant lands was disposed of to the 00 urban construction works, which is the implementer of the said public works.

Therefore, even if each of the lands of this case was owned in the name of the inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance, the claim for expropriation compensation, which is the cost of expropriation of each of the lands of this case, constitutes inherited property.

2) Reversion of the amount equivalent to the instant expropriation compensation

Among the plaintiffs, the plaintiff BB agreed on the division of inherited property between the plaintiff BB to inherit 000 billion won, which is the amount equivalent to the compensation for expropriation of this case, among the compensation claims for expropriation of each land of this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff AB, and Plaintiff BB received compensation for each of the instant lands, paid KRW 00 on November 4, 2014 to Plaintiff BB, and KRW 00 on March 19, 2015, respectively, and paid KRW 00 on behalf of Plaintiff BB on January 20, 2015, such as acquisition tax on each of the instant lands as agreed to be paid by Plaintiff BB on or around January 20, 2015 (i.e., inheritance).

Therefore, although the amount equivalent to the compensation for expropriation of this case was attributed to Plaintiff BB, the disposition of this case was unlawful on different premise. Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 000,000 calculated by applying the spouse inheritance deduction of KRW 0,00 (the spouse inheritance deduction amount denied by the Defendant) out of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Specifying inherited property (whether a claim for compensation for expropriation on each land of this case is inherited property)

A) The inherited property subject to inheritance should be determined as of the date of commencing the inheritance [Article 1(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”)].

Since a project operator, who has obtained project approval under the Land Compensation Act, has acquired land, etc. necessary for the relevant public project through consultation and expropriation procedures, even if the project operator commenced consultation with landowners, etc. with respect to compensation for land, etc., such circumstance alone is insufficient to determine whether the relevant land will be expropriated in accordance with the land expropriation procedures, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the owner of the relevant land holds the purchase price claim or the land compensation claim against the relevant project operator.

Therefore, even if there was a public announcement of project approval for real estate falling under the inherited property at the time of commencement of the inheritance and the consultation procedure on the relevant real estate was underway, it cannot be deemed that the relevant real estate owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance becomes an inherited property, and that the claim for expropriation compensation

B) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the descriptions of Gap evidence 3, 9, Eul evidence 2, and 8.

(1) As the 00 city construction project is implemented on December 5, 2013, the “Public Notice on Approval of the General Industrial Complex Plan for ○○○○○○ 2 to establish a general industrial complex of △△△△△△2” on the 983,126 square meters of the Seoul △△△△△△△△△△, a project executor, was deemed to have been publicly announced under the Land Compensation Act (Article 15(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Simplification of Authorization and Permission Procedures for Industrial Complexes, Articles 7-4(1) and 22(2) of the Industrial Sites and Development Act).

(2) At the time of commencement of the inheritance, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 22, 2015 with respect to each of the instant land for which the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the deceased, under the name of the Plaintiff AB on September 3, 2014.

(3) On February 6, 2015, the expropriation ruling, which was determined as of February 6, 2015 on each of the instant land, was made on December 23, 2014; and on February 10, 2015, the 00 Urban Corporation completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant land as of February 6, 2015.

C) According to the above facts, since there was a public announcement of project approval as to each of the instant lands at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, each of the instant lands owned by the deceased at the time of the commencement of the inheritance does not constitute inherited property, and thus, the claim for expropriation compensation for each of the instant lands, which was not established at the time of the commencement

D) The plaintiffs asserted that the legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7838 Decided June 25, 1991, which held that if a real estate was actually disposed of by a sales contract, etc., even if the registration of such real estate remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of commencing the inheritance, such real estate shall not be included in the inherited property." However, the above precedents are related to the case where the real estate owned by the inheritee was sold before the commencement of the inheritance and the registration of transfer of ownership of such real estate was not completed even after the payment of purchase price was completed, and it is inappropriate to invoke it in the case of this case where there was no disposal act, such as sale, at the time of commencing the inheritance. Therefore, the plaintiff'

2) Whether the instant expropriation compensation is subject to a spouse’s inheritance deduction

(A) In light of the legislative purport of Article 19(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that deducts the amount actually inherited by the spouse from the taxable value of inherited property pursuant to Article 19(1) of the same Act, the purpose is to enable the spouse to taxation on the legal portion of the inherited property upon the death of the remaining spouse after reserving the taxation, considering the fact that the inheritance between the spouse is not a transfer between generations but a horizontal transfer, and that, it appears that Article 19(1) of the same Act stipulates "the amount actually inherited by the spouse" as "the amount actually inherited by the spouse cannot be recognized as the amount of inheritance deduction (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3592 Decided November 10, 205)" that reflects the legislative purport of Article 19(1) of the same Act that the inherited property not actually inherited by the spouse cannot be recognized as the object of the inheritance deduction under Article 19(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and all evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6-1, 2, and 12-1 through evidence No.

(1) On December 1, 1934, Plaintiff BB was hospitalized in a dlim convalescent hospital and received medical treatment in a state where it is impossible to drive as a result of the decline in recognition due to the dliminson’s disease and the unknown climatic dementia, etc. from around November 2013.

(2) Upon consultation on the division of inherited property on January 19, 2015, the Plaintiffs: (a) each of the instant land is owned by Plaintiff AB. 1% of the shares of Plaintiff B’s mother automobile (motor vehicle registration number: u3000,000) ownership of the deceased is owned by Plaintiff EE; (b) each of the instant land is owned by Plaintiff BB and BB; and (c) each of the instant land is owned by Plaintiff BB and BB, and the other amount is the share of Plaintiff BB. The registration is the sole ownership of Plaintiff BB, and the settlement of the amount is to be made after receiving compensation. According to Plaintiff BB’s agreement, the agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “agreement 2”).

(2) Pursuant to the first agreement, on January 22, 2015, Plaintiff AB completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on September 3, 2014. ② Plaintiff AE completed the registration of ownership transfer under its own name with respect to 1% of the deceased’s mother automobile shares owned by the mother of the deceased. The Plaintiffs submitted the second agreement to the tax authority when reporting and paying the instant inheritance tax.

(3) On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff AB paid KRW 00,00, including acquisition tax due to the inheritance of each of the instant lands on January 20, 2015, and ② on February 4, 2015, Plaintiff AB received the total amount of KRW 0,000 (i.e., compensation for each of the instant lands + KRW 0,000 + compensation for obstacles) as compensation for each of the instant lands, and ③ on April 30, 2015, Plaintiff AB reported and paid capital gains tax due to the expropriation of each of the instant lands.

(4) Meanwhile, the details of financial transactions by Plaintiffs BB, etc. are as follows.

(가) 원고 ABB는 2015. 3. 19. 원고 BBB의 명의로 ㄱㄱ은행계좌(이하 '제1ㄱㄱ계좌'라고 한다)를 개설하여 이를 관리하면서 입・출금을 하였다.

(나) 한편 원고 ABB는 이 사건 토지에 관한 수용보상금 중 0,000원 보관하고 있던 자신의 ㄴㄴ증권 주식회사의 계좌에서 2015. 3. 19. 자신이 관리하던 원고 BBB의 다른 ㄱㄱ은행계좌(계좌개설일 : 2014. 11. 4., 이하 '제2ㄱㄱ계좌'라고 한다)로 위 수용보상금 중 0,000원을 송금한 후 같은 날 제2ㄱㄱ계좌에서 제1ㄱㄱ계좌로 0,000원을 송금하였다.

(다) 제1ㄱㄱ계좌에서 2015. 3. 30. 000원이, 2015. 4. 13. 000원이 각 출금되어 이 사건 상속에 따른 상속세 0,000원이 모두 납부되었다. 제1ㄱㄱ계좌의 주요 입・출금내역은 아래 표 기재와 같고, 현재 원고 BBB의 제1ㄱㄱ계좌의 잔고는 0원이다.

(라) 한편 2014. 11. 4. 제2ㄱㄱ계좌로 00원이 입금되었는데(입금자는 알 수 없다), 그 중 00원은 즉시 CCC(원고 BBB과의 관계를 알 수 없다)에게 송금되었고 그 중 00원은 2015. 1. 19. 대체 출금되어 원고 ABB가 이 사건 각 토지를 상속받음에 따라 발생한 취득세 등의 납입에 사용되었다.

(5) The ceiling of spouse’s inheritance deduction by Plaintiff BB’s statutory share of inheritance is KRW 0,000.

C) According to the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, the inherited property, such as the instant confinement compensation, cannot be deemed to have been actually reverted to Plaintiff BB. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition, which was conducted by applying a lump sum deduction of KRW 500 million, on the same premise, is lawful.

(1) Pursuant to the first agreement, Plaintiff AB alone completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands, and Plaintiff AE completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the shares of the automobiles owned by the deceased, so the first agreement appears to have been made in the Plaintiffs’ genuine intent ( despite the Defendant’s assertion that there exists the first agreement and the second agreement with each of the aforementioned different contents, and that the first agreement would be true and genuine, the Plaintiff does not go against it.) However, according to the first agreement, there was no inherited property divided to Plaintiff BB, and Plaintiff AB solely inherited each of the instant lands, and that the first agreement was made between the Plaintiffs.

(2) 원고 BBB이 원고 ABB로부터 이 사건 수용보상금 중 0,000원을 제1ㄱㄱ계좌로 송금받았으나, 그 중 00억여 원은 나머지 원고들이 부담하여야 하는 부분까지 포함하여 이 사건 상속에 따른 상속세로 지출하였고 나머지 0억여 원도 제1ㄱㄱ계좌의 개설하고 관리하여 오던 원고 ABB가 출금하여 임의로 사용하였던 것으로 보일 뿐 치매 등으로 인지상태가 저하된 원고 BBB이 위 출금액을 사용하였던 것으로 보이지는 아니한다. 따라서 원고 BBB에게 이 사건 수용보상금 중 0,000원 상당액이 귀속되었다고 볼 수 없다.

(3) 제2ㄱㄱ계좌로 2014. 11. 4. 00원이 입금되었으나, 위 입금 당시는 상속재산분할의 협의가 이루어지기도 전으로서 원고 ABB가 이 사건 수용보상금을 지급받기도 전이었던 점, 제2ㄱㄱ계좌 역시 원고 ABB가 관리하고 있던 은행계좌로서 위 입금 즉시 원고 BBB과의 관계를 알 수 없는 CCC에게 송금되었고 2015. 1. 19. 00원이 대체 출금되어 원고 ABB가 납부하여야 하는 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 취득세 등 납입에 사용되는 등 대부분이 원고 BBB의 이익과는 무관하게 사용된 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고 BBB에게 이 사건 수용보상금 중 00원이 귀속되었다고 볼 수 없다.

(4) 이 사건 토지는 원고 ABB가 단독으로 상속받았으므로 그 취득세 등 납부의무는 원고 ABB에게 있는 것이고 원고 BBB이 이를 대납할 합리적 이유를 찾을 수 없는 점, 원고 BBB의 제2ㄱㄱ계좌에서 2015. 1. 19. 출금된 00원이 위 취득세 등 납부에 사용되었으므로 원고 ABB가 원고 BBB을 대신하여 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 취득세 등을 납부하였다고 볼 수도 없고, 오히려 원고 ABB가 원고 BBB의 제2ㄱㄱ계좌를 관리하면서 위 00원을 자신의 이익을 위하여 사용한 것으로 보는 것이 합리적인 점 등에 비추어 보면, '원고 ABB가 원고 BBB을 위하여 위 취득세 등 상당액을 대납하였던 것으로서 위 취득세 등 상당액이 원고 BBB에게 귀속되었다.'고 볼 수도 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.