The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are stated as Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10-1, 3, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, 3-1, 2-1, 3, 3, 4, subparagraph 3-1, 3, 2-1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 2-1, 2, 5-1, 2-1, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-1, 2, 2-1, 6-1, 7, and 7-1, 6-2, and 7-2, respectively, of the real estate register:

(1) On March 19, 1990, the non-party GabD died, and the plaintiffs and the non-party GabB and ParkCC were their successors, but the plaintiff et al. did not pay the inheritance tax on the inherited property.

(2) Accordingly, at the time of commencing the inheritance, the Defendant considered the entire amount (1/7 shares of 13 lots) of 14 parcels, other than 4,308 square meters (4,324 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) registered in the above ParkD name, as the inherited property of the Plaintiff, etc. at the standard market price, and assessed the value of the inherited property based on the standard market price. Within three years prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, the Defendant calculated the inheritance tax by adding the value of the inherited property to the land of 60,157.01 square meters and 1/5 of land of 4,000,000, Seoul, 000,000,000,0000 4,000,000,0000 4,000,000,000,000,000 won and 15,000,000 won and 15,000,000 won.

(3) After that, on November 1, 1995, the defendant found that the above real estate was a military installation protection area, and excluded the application of the rate applied at the time of initial imposition. By taking funeral expenses deduction, the plaintiff Park YF's inheritance tax was KRW 79,921,397, KRW 12,767,686, KRW 12,786, KRW 53,280,931, KRW 8,511,791, the defense tax was reduced to KRW 8,51, and the remaining portion of the inheritance tax was determined to be reduced to KRW 73,010,00,000, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 196, KRW 73,010, KRW 94, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 975, decided 197.65.7.

(4) However, on September 15, 1995, the plaintiffs applied for payment in annual installments of the above inheritance tax on the ground that the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor accepted part of the land of this case as the land for urban planning projects (Tcheon - ○○ Road Construction) and the heir of the above ParkD could not be known, the plaintiffs applied for payment in annual installments of the above inheritance tax on the ground that the deposit amount of KRW 157,724,100 deposited by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court No. 95-la 317 was offered as security, but the defendant did not provide a security under Article 28 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) and did not pay the tax amount on the ground that Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082 of Dec. 31, 1993) was rejected.

1.1.1.1. On the other hand, the plaintiffs paid a gift tax of KRW 35,915,524 on the land, etc. 47, ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○, which was donated by the above Park Do on December 1989, on the ground that the above gift tax was erroneously paid on December 9, 1996, the defendant decided to refund KRW 2,602,210 on the above gift tax, and applied the above refund to the inheritance tax levied prior to the above refund, and the refund amount of KRW 3,176,430 on the plaintiff Park Do-dong was decided to refund KRW 3,176,430 on the above refund of KRW 2

2. Whether the instant disposition, etc. was lawful

2.1. The Parties' Opinions

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, etc. was made in accordance with the grounds for the disposition of this case and the relevant statutes, and that the plaintiffs should revoke the disposition of this case for the following reasons.

First, the instant land purchased KRW 65,400 from the above gambling on February 10, 1965 by Plaintiff Park E-E, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer due to the fact that the Plaintiff Park E-E purchased KRW 65,400, but did not obtain the certificate of farmland sale. However, the instant disposition that the Defendant allowed to include it in the inherited property is unlawful.

Second, even if the land of this case is included in the inherited property, the plaintiff Park E has cultivated the above land from around 1970 and around April 9, 1979, he occupied and used the above land as farmland, such as building pigss on the above land and raising pigs. As long as the above plaintiff, who is a family member of the deceased, continued to engage in agriculture for more than two years prior to the commencement of inheritance, the defendant continued to engage in agriculture. Thus, the disposition of this case which did not deduct the above amount of KRW 80,000,000 from the value of inherited property, is unlawful, even though the value of the inherited property should be subject to the deduction of farmland inheritance in accordance with Article 11-3 of the former Inheritance Tax Act.

Third, even though the plaintiffs applied for payment by annual installments to the defendant as security for the deposit certificate of Seoul Civil and Security District Court No. 95-17, the defendant's rejection without justifiable reasons is illegal.

Fourth, the defendant demanded that the plaintiff appropriate the deposit money in the form of a petition against the defendant's disposition of this case on September 12, 1995 to reduce the burden of additional dues, and then, on the 15th of the same month, the defendant did not neglect the application for annual payment of inheritance tax, and did not neglect the procedure of collection, such as taking the seizure procedure for the deposit money on October of the same year, but delayed the collection procedure by neglecting its duties, and was appropriated for the inheritance tax after receiving the deposit money and then making it appropriated for the inheritance tax. Thus, it is unlawful to collect additional dues under the National Tax Collection Act even though additional dues are not generated.

Fifth, it is deemed that the Defendant’s failure to determine additional dues on refund while making a decision on refund of gift tax against the Plaintiffs is an act of refusal of additional dues by omission, which is unlawful in violation of Article 52 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree

2.2. Relevant legislation and determination

2.2.1 As to whether the land of this case is inherited property or not

1.2.1.the relevant legislation;

Article 1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that when inheritance begins, where an ancestor has a domicile in Korea or has inherited property in Korea, the inheritance tax shall be levied pursuant to this Act. Article 2(1)4 of the former Defense Tax Act provides that a person liable to pay inheritance tax pursuant to the provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act shall be a defense taxpayer.

2.2.1.2the determination

In light of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 10-2 (Sales Certificate) indicating that the land of this case was registered in the name of the above gamblingD at the time of commencing the inheritance, while Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 15 (Judgment Nos. 10) suggest that the above facts of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above facts. [The above sale certificate No. 3, No. 4-1, and No. 2 (Delivery and Decision No. 1) state that the above sale certificate was not submitted as evidence in the examination and appeal procedure filed by the plaintiff et al. against the disposition of this case, the above sale certificate No. 13-1, No. 2 (Application for Correction of Claim), and Nos. 15 (Judgment No. 15), and evidence No. 2 of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff Park E purchased the land of this case from the above gamblingD is insufficient or evidence No. 12500, Aug. 17, 1995.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which included the land of this case in the inherited property, is legitimate, and the first argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

2.2.2.2. As to whether the farmland inheritance deduction has been made or not

1.2.2.1the relevant legislation;

Article 11-3 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that in case where inheritance commences due to the death of a person who has a domicile in Korea, the value of the inherited property of the inheritee prescribed by the Presidential Decree includes the value of the property falling under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall be deducted from the taxable value of Article 4, and subparagraph 1 provides that farmland (including the case of non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection) that is subject to the farmland tax pursuant to the provisions of the

In addition, Article 8-3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that the term "a decedent as prescribed by Presidential Decree" means a decedent who has resided in a Si (including Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities) which is identical with the location of farmland, grassland, or forest land, or in an Eup/Myeon, or in an area adjacent thereto (referring to an area that can normally be cultivated directly) and who has been directly engaged in agriculture for more than two years before the date of commencing the inheritance.

2.2.2.2. Determination

In full view of the provisions of the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, a farmland inheritance deduction shall apply to cases where the value of farmland subject to farmland tax is included in the value of inherited property of a decedent who had been directly engaged in agriculture for two years prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, and according to the statement of No. 10 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) No. 4, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above GabD had been directly engaged in agriculture for two years prior to the commencement date of the inheritance date, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Furthermore, according to the records of the above evidence Nos. 12, as to whether the above Park E had been engaged in agriculture continuously including cultivating the land in this case, it can be acknowledged that the above Park E has obtained permission to build money on the land in this case around April 1973. However, there is no reflective evidence, and the date of permission is not only about 17 years prior to the commencement date of the business in this case, but also about 17 years prior to the commencement date of the business in this case, the above plaintiff Park E's resident registration address on the land in Seongdong-gu, Seoul and about 305-12, from October 20, 1968 to October 30, 1980 to 238, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiff Park E cannot be viewed as being directly recorded in the above evidence Nos. 98 and No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiff Park E's resident registration address on the land in this case.

Therefore, the second argument by the plaintiffs that the farmland inheritance deduction should be made in the inheritance tax of this case is without merit.

2.2.3. As to the legitimacy of the rejection disposition against payment by annual installments

1.2.3.1the relevant legislation;

Article 28 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that when the amount of inheritance tax payable exceeds 10 million won, the head of a tax office may grant permission for payment by annual installments upon receiving an application from the taxpayer under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the taxpayer should provide security. Paragraph (3) provides that when the taxpayer who has obtained permission for payment by annual installments pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a tax office may cancel the permission for payment by annual installments and collect the tax amount related to payment by annual installments in a lump sum. Paragraph (1) provides that when the taxpayer fails to pay the amount by the designated deadline for payment under subparagraph 1, the time when the taxpayer fails to comply with the order of the head of a tax office necessary for changing the security under subparagraph 2, or for preserving the security under subparagraph 3, the time when the taxpayer fails to comply with the

On the other hand, Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) provides that security provided under tax-related Acts shall fall under any of the following subparagraphs among money (paragraph 1), state bonds or local bonds (paragraph 2), securities recognized to be reliable by the head of a tax office (paragraph 3), tax credit guarantee insurance policy (paragraph 4), letter of guarantee of guarantor recognized to be reliable by the head of a tax office (paragraph 5), land (paragraph 6), buildings, factories, mining foundations, ships, aircraft, or construction machinery (paragraph 7), and Article 31 (1) provides that any person who intends to offer money or securities as security for tax payment shall deposit it and submit a certificate of deposit receipt to the head of a tax office: Provided, That in cases of registered state bonds, local government bonds or bonds, the purport of offering security shall be registered and submitted.

2.2.3.2the determination;

In the process of the disposition, etc. of this case, the security that the plaintiffs sought to provide to the defendant when filing an application for payment by annual installments is a deposit certificate of KRW 157,724,100 deposited by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court 95Hun-Ga 317 on the ground that the plaintiffs could not know the successors of the above Park Do Do Do 317 on the ground that the part of the land of this case was accepted as the land for the urban planning project (Tcheon - ○○ Interconnection Corporation) and the compensation cannot be paid. The above deposit certificate cannot be deemed as a security under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes ( even after being written in the evidence No. 4-1, 2, and No. 7). In addition, according to the above deposit certificate, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs provided legitimate security under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes upon filing an application for payment by annual installments.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the plaintiffs' application for payment by annual installments is justifiable, and the third argument of the plaintiffs is not reasonable.

2.2.4.As to the occurrence of additional charges

If national taxes are not paid by the due date, the additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment without the due date of payment by the due date of payment by the right of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1627, Apr. 26, 1996). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' fourth assertion that there is no additional dues under the National Tax Collection Act, since there is no evidence that the plaintiffs filed an application for payment by annual installments by providing legitimate security under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or there is no evidence that the above inheritance tax

2.2.5. As to the legitimacy of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition of refusal to refund gift tax refund

The determination on the refund of national tax (additional payment on the refund of national tax included) by the head of a tax office under Articles 51(1) and 52 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is merely an internal administrative procedure that provides for the refund procedure of a national tax refund for which the tax payer’s claim for refund has already become final and conclusive, and it does not become final and conclusive only by the determination of the national tax refund under the corresponding provision. Thus, the determination on the refund of national tax or the refusal of refund of a request for the determination thereof cannot be deemed a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14250, Dec. 2, 1994; 8Nu643

Therefore, even if the defendant did not make a decision on the refund of gift tax in December 9, 1996 on the determination and appropriation of the refund of gift tax to the plaintiffs on December 9, 1996, this cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit seeking its revocation is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of refusal to pay gift tax additional to the gift tax is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating parties.

may 6, 1998