상속세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The heir B, C, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the decedent”) inherited the decedent’s property (hereinafter “the instant inherited property”) including the shares of the non-listed E Co., Ltd. (E) (hereinafter “E”) that the decedent died on January 15, 201 and served as the representative director of the decedent, as the heir of the network D (hereinafter “E”).
B. On August 1, 2011, when calculating the value of inherited property pursuant to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”), the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 1,743,520,582 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to be included in the short-term claim of shareholders, executives, employees, and employees on the statement of financial position as of January 15, 2011 is the claim against the E’s decedent (or an inheritee’s obligation to the E if the foregoing is different); (b) calculated the value including the amount of the instant loan in the net asset value of the E’s holding by the decedent; and (c) deducted the amount of the said loan from the debt to the inherited property; and (d) voluntarily paid the inheritance tax by voluntarily paying the inheritance tax by paying the amount of the inherited property as KRW 2,779,625,297; and (d) 42,397,515.
C. From June 25, 2012 to October 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) denied the deduction for the reason that the instant loan was not an inheritee’s debt; and (b) determined that the assessment of the instant loan amount was reasonable, calculated by including the amount of the instant loan in the net asset value; (c) increased the taxable amount of inheritance taxes to KRW 2,532,945,467; and (d) notified the heir, including the Plaintiff, of the inheritance tax of KRW 749,191,60, which was inherited on January 15, 2011.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review on July 19, 2013. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on October 24, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 and 2.