2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The court's reasoning for this case is that the "25,857,640 won" of the 3th 5th 5th th th 5th son of the first instance court's decision is "25,857,640 won (including additional payment 2,495,117 won)", "6th 9th 6th 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 2th 3th 7th 7th 7th 7th 3th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 200, as the grounds of the first instance court's decision, except for the addition of "decision on the plaintiff's additional argument in the court of first instance" to "the decision on the plaintiff's additional argument in the court of first instance" as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial room

A. The plaintiff's additional assertion

The additional tax shall not be imposed in a case where there is a justifiable reason in the taxpayer's neglect of duty. However, since it is impossible for the Plaintiff to confirm a sale case of apartments similar to each apartment of this case other than the standard market price of the National Tax Service, in the case of the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that there is a justifiable reason in the taxpayer's neglect of duty. Therefore, the part concerning the

B. Determination

(1) According to Article 78 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006), where the head of a tax office, etc. has not paid the payable tax amount under Article 70 within the due date for submission, or has paid it below the payable tax amount according to the tax base determined under Article 76, an amount calculated by multiplying the unpaid or underpaid tax amount (where payment by annual installments or payment in kind is applied for under Article 71 or 73, the unpaid tax amount shall be included) by the period from the date of voluntary payment or notice to the date of voluntary payment or notice, and the rate as determined by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the interest rate at financial institutions, shall be added to the calculated tax amount. Article 80 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19899 of Feb. 28, 2007) provides that "rate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" under Article 78 (

(2) In full view of the fact that an additional tax paid pursuant to the above Act and subordinate statutes leads a taxpayer to pay inheritance tax in good faith, securing the performance of his/her duty to pay tax, and the amount paid by the due date for tax return is an administrative sanction against the violation of his/her duty to pay tax by deeming that he/she received financial benefits. As seen earlier, in the case of apartment buildings, the amount of similar transaction cases can be verified to a considerable extent through real estate brokerage office, real estate-related magazines, and the Internet site related to real estate, etc., the mere fact that the Plaintiff was insufficient to verify the due date for the completion of the similar transaction cases does not necessarily mean that there is a justifiable reason for paying the amount below the payable tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16308, Nov. 27, 1998; 98Du13546, Oct. 10, 200).

(3) Therefore, since the part of the Defendant’s disposition of this case’s additional payment is legitimate, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap7932 ( October 17, 2007)]

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4:

A. A. On November 1, 2004, the plaintiff was deceased on November 1, 2004, and accordingly, as the child of the deceased leapO (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), the plaintiff was succeeded to 30-2 OO apartment 8, 8074 (175.80 square meters, hereinafter referred to as "the first apartment of this case") such as 30 O apartment 2, 512 (89.26 square meters, hereinafter referred to as "the second apartment of this case") and 30 O apartment 2, 512 (89.26 square meters, hereinafter referred to as "the second apartment of this case").

B. Upon reporting the inheritance tax on each apartment of this case on May 10, 2005, the Plaintiff calculated and reported the value of the inherited property of this case as the standard market price publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in turn at KRW 729,00,000 and KRW 348,50,000, respectively.

C. Accordingly, on or before November 11, 2004, the inheritance date of each apartment of this case, the defendant investigated trading cases of neighboring apartment of 6 months, and the determination was made by considering that the apartment of 8161, which is the same as that of the 1 apartment of this case, the same area, and other floors (hereinafter referred to as "first similar apartment of this case") was 890,000,000 on May 12, 2004, the same as that of the 2 of this case, the same direction, the same area, 513 apartment of 513 (hereinafter referred to as "second similar apartment of this case") was 0,000,000 won, and the value of each apartment of this case was 0,000,000 won and 20,000,0000 won, 20,0000 won, 50,0000 won, 20,000 won prior to the disposition of 2 of this case.14.

D. On June 19, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 19, 2006, but was dismissed on November 24, 2006.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant tax disposition is unlawful on the ground that the tax notice of this case does not specify the basis for calculation of the value of similar trading cases and its ground provisions.

(2) Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is the basis of the instant disposition, requires the fulfillment of the duty of determining whether or not the transaction of other property similar to the donated property is traded, and not, as well as the arbitrary infringement of the people’s property rights through the Enforcement Decree, rather than the law, is contrary to the tax law, and thus, it is unlawful to regard the transaction value of other property than the pertinent property as the market price of the pertinent property beyond

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a tax payment notice is defective

According to Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, when collecting national taxes, the taxpayer shall issue a notice stating the taxable year, items, amount of taxes, the basis for calculating the national taxes, the deadline for payment and the place for payment, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act provides the form of tax payment notice.

Therefore, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Defendant imposed and notified the total tax amount to be reverted to and payable in the statutory tax payment notice, and the tax base, tax rate, additional tax, deducted tax amount, etc. The Plaintiff’s total inherited property value, including each apartment of this case, was increased by 192,50,000 won compared to 1,188,753,427 won. The above increased amount is the difference between the standard market price of each apartment of this case and the similar sale price of each apartment of this case. Thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice based on the premise that the pertinent tax payment notice’s fair and reasonable disposition should be notified to the person liable for tax payment pursuant to the principle of no taxation without law, and the details of the tax payment notice’s objection should be stated in detail to the extent that it did not request the person liable for tax payment to calculate the tax payment notice, and the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice’s grounds and grounds for appeal cannot be found otherwise.

(2) Whether Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful

(A) According to Article 60(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, when the value of inherited property is calculated on the basis of "market price as of the date inheritance commences," the meaning of "market price" includes the value recognized as "market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public auction price, and appraisal price," in addition to the value generally accepted when transactions are made freely between many and unspecified persons. Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, enacted upon delegation by the mother law, provides that the market price of inherited property is a target transaction for which the sale, appraisal, expropriation, light sale, or re-sale is conducted within six months before or after the base date of appraisal, and provides specific criteria for value as each subparagraph. However, Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act expands the market price to be calculated in addition to the pertinent

(B) Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the current market price based on which the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is based on the standards for the evaluation of inherited property is, in principle, an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction; and (b) the current market price is not the transaction price determined by a single transaction; (c) the current standard for determining the current market price is delegated by the Presidential Decree as difficult to provide for all types of transactions due to the continuous change in the transaction environment and the form of the transaction; (d) Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides the approximate standard for the transactions recognized as the current market price; and (e) the current standard for verifying the current market price of real estate is difficult to determine the current market price of the same or similar donated property by the Presidential Decree No. 1817, Dec. 30, 200; and (e) it is difficult to view the current market price of the relevant apartment property as the current market price and the price of the relevant donated property that is substantially identical or similar to the current market price.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, as of November 11, 2004, the day on which the Defendant: (a) investigated the transaction case regarding the gift value of each apartment of this case as of November 1, 2004; and (b) deemed the sales value confirmed in the transaction cases of each similar apartment of this case, the same direction, the same area, and other floors or the same floor as that of each similar apartment of this case, as the market value of each apartment of this case; and (c) taken the disposition of this case by deeming the sales value confirmed in the transaction cases of each similar apartment of this case as the market value of each apartment of this case, the disposition of this case is legitimate disposition under

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.