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

A. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff reported 8,482,827,350 won of inheritance tax on November 2, 2009, which was within the statutory inheritance tax reporting deadline, as the deceased was deceased, and only 1,413,804,550 won among them were paid, and 7,069,02,80 won were paid, as the remainder 7,069,022,80 won was acquired through consultation on the deceased’s land in order to use the land as the site for an urban development project, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to deposit the land compensation amounting to 9,605,848,242 won with the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as Seoul Central District Court, hereinafter referred to as the “Inward Corporation”) with the heir, including the Plaintiff, as the depositee, and the deposit compensation amounting to 9,605,820,000 won, and 1224,00 won and 1424.

B. On April 15, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the Plaintiff’s application for permission to pay annual installments on the ground that the claim for compensation for land deposited by the Nonparty Corporation in the Seoul District Court constitutes an inappropriate property management and disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and filed an objection with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on August 30, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 1, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the application on April 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i)a procedural defect;

The defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for permission for payment by annual installments of inheritance tax and stated only the ground and reason related to the rejection of payment by annual installments of inheritance tax, which is not entirely related to the grounds for rejection of payment by annual installments of inheritance tax. According to this, it is evident that the disposition in this case was made without presenting the basis and reason of the disposition. Thus, procedural defects exist.

2) Material defect

Although it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff provided land compensation bonds (local government bonds) and money to Nonparty Corporation, a security for tax payment under Article 29 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in substance, in light of the nature of the deposit certificate of this case, although the Plaintiff provided the Defendant formally as security for tax payment (the inheritance tax and additional dues were collected, such as the Defendant’s exercise of security right based on the deposit certificate of this case). On different premise, the Defendant issued the instant disposition which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission for annual payment of inheritance tax on a different premise.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion of procedural defect

A) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reason for the disposition to the parties when it takes a disposition. The purpose of the provision is to exclude the decision of the administrative agency's discretion and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Thus, in full view of the contents stated in the written disposition, relevant statutes, and the overall process up to the disposition, etc., if it is possible to fully understand that the disposition was made for any ground and reason, and if it is deemed that there was no particular obstacle to the party's objection to moving into the administrative remedy procedure, it cannot be said that the disposition is illegal unless the grounds and reason for the disposition are specifically specified in the written disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009).

(1) Therefore, even if an administrative agency stated only a statute based on the disposition while rendering the disposition, it is naturally possible to know the facts corresponding to the pertinent provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7138, Feb. 5, 2002). (2) Where, although the factual basis was stated in the contrary, although the relevant statute was not stated, it is possible to know the grounds for the disposition even if it was not stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5741, Sept. 10, 1993). (3) Although the relevant statute or factual basis is inadequate, the person subject to disposition is able to clearly recognize his/her experience through the entire process of knowledge or disposition and determine the object of objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the Defendant comprehensively considering the overall purport of each statement and pleading on the Plaintiff’s health bond, Gap’s No. 1 through 4 (tentative number circulation), i.e., the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for permission for payment in annual installments on April 15, 2010, which is determined to constitute an inappropriate property for management and disposition of land compensation claims deposited in Seoul District Court, Article 73 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 19-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which clearly stated the grounds for rejection of permission for payment in annual installments, and thus, the Defendant did not allow the Plaintiff to request correction of payment in annual installments without any justifiable ground for rejection of permission for payment in annual installments, in light of the purport of the instant disposition that the Plaintiff was not aware of the grounds for rejection of permission for payment in annual installments.

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of procedural defect is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.