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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 27, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of denying payment in kind of inheritance tax of 54,350 square meters in relation to ○○○-ri 494-3 forest land 165,922 square meters against the Plaintiff is revoked.

A. Plaintiff’s voluntary report of inheritance tax and application for annual payment

1) The Plaintiff is the children of the deceased AA (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). On September 14, 2010, the deceased died and inherited property with five children of the deceased. On March 31, 2011, the inheritor including the Plaintiff calculated the taxable value of inherited property, including ○○○○, as indicated below, by calculating the taxable value of inherited property to the Defendant as ○○○○○○○○, and filed a voluntary declaration on the tax base to the ○○○○○○, and the tax amount to be paid.

Omission of the Table

2) On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff paid ○○○○○, a part of the inheritance tax reported to the Defendant at the same time with the said voluntary declaration, in cash, and filed an application for annual payment to the remainder of ○○○○○○○○, which was the annual payment. On September 28, 2011, the Defendant permitted annual payment.

(b) An objection, etc. against an application filed by the plaintiff for permission for payment in kind or a disposition of payment.

1) On March 5, 2012, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the payment of annual installments tax amount of KRW 00,00,000. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment in kind of inheritance tax with 00,000 square meters of 43-1 forest land and 19,438 square meters.

2) On March 19, 2012, the Defendant ordered the change of property paid in kind on the ground that the Plaintiff’s proprietary property, other than inherited property, does not constitute property paid in kind.

On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the property paid in kind with ○○○○-ri Forest 42,058 square meters, which was donated in advance by 1/3 shares, along with BB and CCC, from the Deceased on May 27, 2005 (hereinafter “the forest before division”), among 207,403 square meters of forest land and 42,058 square meters (hereinafter “the forest before division”).

3) On April 5, 2012, DD, public officials in charge of the Defendant’s side, proposed that it would be possible to conduct an on-site inspection of forest land before subdivision and that it would be possible for the Plaintiff to pay it in kind, and that it would be appropriate to divide it to the extent that it does not have the Han Binding tower with the

Accordingly, on April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the property paid in kind to ○○○○○○○○○, 1,376 square meters of forest land 41,480 square meters of forest land ○○○○○-1,376 square meters, 41,480 square meters of forest land 494-3 forest land 165,922 square meters of ○○○-4 forest land, 494-4 forest land 129,969 square meters, and filed an application for permission to change the property paid in kind with the Defendant, excluding annual payment, among the tax amount paid in annual installments, around that time.

4) On May 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) donated property for which payment is applied in kind to the Plaintiff; and (b) is possible to pay it in kind

On June 14, 2012, the plaintiff notified the Tax Tribunal of non-permission of payment in kind (hereinafter referred to as "the first non-permission disposition"), and the plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal.

5) On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to pay in kind on two or five occasions, excluding additional dues, on March 26, 2013, for the permission to pay in kind, on the basis of ○○-ri 494-1, 494-3, and 494-4 forest land. However, on April 10, 2013, the Defendant also notified the Defendant that payment in kind should be denied on the same ground as the first non-permission disposition (hereinafter “second non-permission disposition”), and the Plaintiff appealed against the application and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 20, 2013.

C. Determination by the Tax Tribunal and the Disposition of this case

1) On September 2, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision revoking the first non-permission disposition on September 23, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) regarding a request for adjudication on the second non-permission disposition as to the first non-permission disposition, the inherited property subject to the statutory law is construed to include the donated property prior to the commencement of inheritance; (b) however, the inheritance tax that may be paid in advance with donated property may be within the scope of the increased tax amount due to the addition of the value of donated property to the taxable value of inherited property; and (c) subsequently, on September 23, 2014, rendered a decision revoking the second non-permission disposition on the said request for adjudication

2) In accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal on October 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) granted ○○○○○○○○○, among the inheritance tax amount ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment in kind, the payment in kind of 11,572 square meters out of 494-2 forest land and 41,480 square meters, 494-3 forest land and 494-3 forest land and 165,922 square meters; and (b) notified ○○○○○○○, 494-3 forest land and 165,922 square meters, which is the remainder of 54,350 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant non-permission disposition”). (hereinafter referred to as “the portion for which payment in kind was non-permission of payment in kind”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the non-permission disposition in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of inheritance tax that may be applied for payment in kind

The scope of inheritance tax that can apply for payment in kind is calculated only on the basis of the value of the property actually inherited except for property subject to prior donation. Thus, the scope of the Plaintiff’s application for payment in kind is at least 00 won. Therefore, the instant disposition that allowed payment in kind only with respect to 000 won that may not be said, and denied payment in kind in part with respect to 00 Ri 494-3 forest land is

2) Violation of the principle of good faith

The Plaintiff filed an application for payment in kind with respect to the total amount of inheritance tax permitted for payment in annual installments in accordance with the specific tax guidance or commitment of DD public officials in charge of payment in kind of inheritance tax, and there is no reason attributable to the Plaintiff or its agent in trust of the public opinion statement of DD. Therefore, the instant non-permission disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

3) A deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

Article 73(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office may allow payment in kind in excess of the payable tax amount if there is no value suitable for paying the payable tax amount, and that part of the ○○○○○-ri 494-3 forest land, the payment in which the payment in kind is not permitted, is considerably disadvantageous to the Plaintiff due to the lack of slope use and exchange value due to its location on the normal side of the mountain, whereas even if payment in kind is permitted, it is not likely to undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party. Thus, the disposition of non-permission for payment in part of the forest land of ○○-ri

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of inheritance tax amount applied for payment in kind

A) Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that an inheritor is obligated to pay inheritance tax according to the rate calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree based on the property received or to be received by each heir among inherited property with respect to inheritance imposed under this Act, and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that an inherited property under Article 13(1) includes any donated property received by an heir or a testamentary donee among inherited property added to inherited property pursuant to Article 13, and Paragraph (1) of the same Article provides that the taxable value of inherited property shall be added from the value of inherited property to "property of an ancestor donated by an ancestor to an heir within 10 years prior to the commencement date of inheritance," "property value donated by an ancestor to a person other than an heir within five years prior to the commencement date of inheritance".

In addition, Article 73 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "Where the value of real estate and securities among inherited property exceeds 1/2 of the value of the relevant property and the amount of the inheritance tax payable exceeds 10 million won, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may allow payment only for the real estate and securities upon request of a taxpayer, as prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 73 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24358, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree") provides that "the amount of tax payable that can be claimed for payment in kind pursuant to Article 73 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not exceed the amount of the inheritance

In light of the above relevant provisions, in cases where a certain amount of donated property made prior to the commencement of inheritance is included in inherited property and the obligation to pay inheritance tax is determined, and the value of real estate and securities of such inherited property exceeds 1/2 of the value of inherited property and the amount of inheritance tax exceeds 10 million won, it is permitted to pay in kind within the limit of the amount of inheritance tax payable for the value of real estate and securities which are inherited property. Thus, in cases where donated property is included in inherited property, it constitutes property subject to payment in kind and the scope of inheritance tax payable in kind is limited to the amount of inheritance tax payable for the value of real estate and securities

B) In this case, the value of inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance is ○○○○, and among which the value of inherited property is ○○○○○○○○, the value of donated property in advance is ○○○○○○, and the value of real estate among which the value of donated property is ○○○○○, and the fact that the amount of inheritance tax to be paid is ○○○○○○, as seen earlier. Therefore, in calculating the scope of inheritance tax that may be paid in advance as forests and fields prior to division of donated property

Omission of the Table

Therefore, as seen earlier, the value of the real estate already permitted by the Defendant to pay in kind exceeds 000 won, which is an inheritance tax amount increased due to the addition of donated property in advance, which is the permissible limit of due payment in kind. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment in kind was permitted after calculating the permissible limit of payment in advance on the basis of inherited property not including donated property on a different premise from the aforementioned legal principles and on a different premise, after calculating the permissible limit of

2) As to the assertion that the principle of good faith is violated

A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority should name the public opinion list subject to taxpayer’s trust; the tax authority’s name of opinion is justifiable; the taxpayer’s name is not attributable to the taxpayer; and the taxpayer must act in trust; and the tax authority’s disposition against the above opinion list should result in infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19447, Apr. 29, 2010).

B) In the instant case, the public health team and the public official in charge of the Defendant’s side expressed the Plaintiff’s opinion that it is deemed possible to conduct a field investigation of forest land before subdivision and pay it in kind, and that it would be possible to divide the forest land before subdivision into an amount equivalent

As a result, in this case where the defendant has already granted payment in kind beyond the reasonable scope of payment in advance, the public opinion of the tax authority that the public official in charge of the defendant has presented his opinion as above, and that the plaintiff would allow payment in kind without any review, or that there was no public opinion of the tax authority to allow payment in kind even for the whole permitted inheritance tax amount in annual installments beyond the reasonable scope of payment in kind, and that at least the permissible scope of payment in kind is limited to the inheritance tax amount for the value of the relevant real estate and securities among inherited property when filing an application for payment in kind. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-permission disposition in this case violates the principle of good faith is not acceptable.

3) As to the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Article 73(2) of the former Enforcement Decree provides that "If there is no value equivalent to the payment of tax amount under paragraph (1) of this Article among real estate and securities which are inherited property, the head of a tax office may permit the payment of tax amount in excess of the relevant tax amount, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)." The purport of the provision is to prevent the payment of inherited property permitted to be paid in kind, but it is not possible to divide it in accordance with the tax amount that can be claimed for payment in kind as provided in paragraph (1) of the same Article, so it is impossible to make the payment in kind in excess of the limit provided in Article 73(1) of the former Enforcement Decree, if the property to be paid in kind can be divided in accordance with

In this case, according to the statement 6, 3-3, 494-3, 165,922 square meters of ○○○-ri 494-3, 165,922 square meters of forest land on November 18, 2014, the fact that ○○-ri 494-3, 11,572 square meters of forest land, 494-5, 494-3, 550 square meters of forest land (hereinafter referred to as “the part of ○○-ri 494-3 forest”) can be recognized. Thus, ○○○-ri 494-3 forest land may be divided in accordance with the amount of tax payable, and it cannot be deemed that the real estate and securities, which are inherited property, are suitable for paying the amount of tax payable under paragraph (1), constitutes “when there is no value of the real estate or securities,” under Article 73(2) of the former Enforcement Decree.

In addition, in full view of the purport and text of Article 73(2) of the former Enforcement Decree, and the system of payment in kind is an exception to the principle of payment in cash, and it is necessary to determine the allowable scope of payment in kind in consideration of the equity of tax burden between the payer in kind and the payer in kind and the appropriateness of securing of national tax revenue, etc., even if the payment in kind is not allowed for infringement of the Plaintiff’s interest because the economic value of part of 494-3 forest land in 00 Ri 494-3 forest land, the payment in kind should not be permitted in excess of the relevant

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

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.