Whether or not to recognize bonds borrowed by an ancestor prior to the birth of the ancestor

Although it was not directly remitted to the decedent, it is confirmed that it was transferred to the decedent and used for the payment of delinquent taxes by the decedent. Therefore, the amount of debts should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property.

Public imposts, etc. deducted from the value of inherited property under Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Procedure of Appeal.

Reference Materials: Seoul High Court 2006Nu6781 ( November 21, 2006)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The part exceeding 16,174,624 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 146,276,481 on July 13, 2004 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Cho ○○ on the part of the disposition of imposition of KRW 16,174,624 on the part of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Lee ○○ shall be revoked, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is as follows: (a) and (b) of Article 2-3(1) of the Act on the Grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance adding "No. 21-1, 2, and 3 of the Act on the Grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance" to "No. 21-1, 2, and 3 of the Act on the Grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance"; and (b) "No. 1,00,000 won 6 copies of the Act on the Grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and one million won cashier's checks of the Bank of Korea and the Bank of Korea issued on July 8, 194, 194, 194, 7, 100,000 won cashier's checks of the National Bank of Korea issued on the grounds of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted for some reasons, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Reference Materials: Revocation of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax ( February 9, 2006) by the Seoul Administrative Court 2005Guhap20603

1. On July 13, 2004, the part exceeding KRW 53,543,357 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 146,276,481 of inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against Plaintiff Cho ○○ on July 13, 200, which exceeds KRW 35,340,037 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 96,546,362 of inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against Plaintiff Lee○○ shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants.

The part exceeding 16,174,624 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 146,276,481 on July 13, 2004 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Cho ○○ on the disposition of imposition of KRW 16,174,62 of the inheritance tax, and the part exceeding 10,675,681 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 96,546,362 of the inheritance tax against the Plaintiff Lee○○

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 200, Nonparty ○○○○, Plaintiff ○○, Nonparty ○○○, Nonparty ○○○, Nonparty ○○○, and Nonparty ○○○○, who died on the part of Nonparty ○○○, and became co-inheritors. Thereafter, on April 25, 2001, the above inheritors made an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that ○○’s property on the part of Nonparty 1 was written in the specifications of inherited property and the value of inherited property (hereinafter “EE”) on the part of Nonparty ○○○○○○-dong ○○○-dong and its ground, and on the other property, the remaining property was owned by Plaintiff ○○○.

B. Of the total value of inherited property of KRW 2,227,168,623, the Plaintiffs filed a return on the tax base of inheritance tax with KRW 124,947,60,05, deducting KRW 60,449,360, public charges from KRW 2,102,221,018, deducting KRW 10,000,000,000 for funeral expenses, and KRW 2,031,771,658, which is calculated as the taxable value of inherited property, after deducting KRW 573,33,05,000,000 for each inheritance tax base after deducting KRW 124,947,60,000,000 for inheritance tax, which is non-taxable property of inheritance tax.

C. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a revised return on the tax base, etc. to the effect that the said obligation would be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, by omitting the obligation KRW 660 million at the time of filing an inheritance tax base return, and on December 2001, the Plaintiffs filed a revised return on the tax base, etc.

D. However, the Defendant: (a) cannot be recognized as gold-farm forest land; (b) 124,947,605 won in the value of inherited property; (c) was added to the value of inherited property; and (d) was deemed as having omitted filing by the Plaintiffs of property Nos. 22 through 25 in the specification of inherited property; and (b) was added to the value of inherited property; (c) KRW 17,169,100 in the aggregate to the value of inherited property; (d) was not recognized as KRW 66,726,118 (including additional tax); and (e) was calculated on July 13, 2004 on the basis of KRW 285,726,118 (including additional tax); and (e) KRW 171,07,082 won (including KRW 286,118,000 in the total amount of KRW 4785,000 in the inheritance tax amount; and (e) was imposed on Plaintiff 16581,075% in the value of inherited property (hereinafter referred to the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, on August 30, 2004, Plaintiff Cho ○ filed an appeal against the instant disposition. On April 22, 2005, the National Tax Tribunal recognized the land Nos. 1 through 3 as gold-yang forest land, and rendered a decision to rectify the inheritance tax base and tax amount based on recognizing the Plaintiff’s claim as the obligation of KRW 70 million among the Plaintiff’s claims.

F. On June 3, 2005, the Defendant, upon the decision of the National Tax Tribunal, deducted respectively KRW 14,690,605 and KRW 242,822,843 calculated on the basis of the above-mentioned forest value from the taxable value of inherited property, and decided upon the total inheritance tax amount of KRW 146,276,481 [242,82,843 won and X60.24% of the total amount of 146,546,362 won (the initial ratio of possession of inherited property was changed as fish forest was excluded from the taxable value of inherited property). The instant disposition against the Plaintiff ○ was reduced to KRW 96,546,362 (242,82,843 won and KRW 39.76%).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 13, Gap evidence 4-1 through 7, Gap evidence 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) On three lots of land, such as ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong 2,278.19 square meters, the Defendant is equipped with 18 graves for ○○○○ ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○-dong 707 square meters, which are recognized as a gold-sea forest. The aggregate of 1,806 square meters for five parcels of land, including ○○ ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong 707 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant parcel of land”), which are prepared to put up the water and clothing of the said grave, constitutes an inheritance tax-free property pursuant to Article 12 subparag. 3 of the Inheritance Program and Gift Tax Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant was found to have included this in the taxable value of inherited property and thus was unlawful.

(2) ○○○ borrowed KRW 660 million on July 21, 1994, including KRW 200 million on May 30, 1995, and KRW 460 million on May 30, 1995, and did not repay it until the time of death. Therefore, this should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property. Accordingly, the Defendant recognized only KRW 70 million as a debt, and recognized the remainder as a debt, and imposed each of the dispositions of this case without recognizing it as a debt, and thus, it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 7 (Scope of Inherited Property)

(1) The inherited property under Article 1 shall include the property belonging to the inheritee, which is all articles having economic value capable of realizing in money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

Article 12 (Non-Taxable Inherited Property)

The inheritance tax shall not be levied on the properties as provided in the following subparagraphs:

3. Property within the limit prescribed by the Presidential Decree from among property provided for in Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act;

Article 13 (Taxable Amount for Taxable Taxes)

(1) The taxable amount for calculating the inheritance taxes shall be the amount obtained by adding the amounts of property falling under each of the following subparagraphs, after deducting the amounts under the provisions of Article 14 from

Article 14 (Public Imposts, etc. Deducted from Value of Inherited Property)

(1) Where inheritance commences due to the death of a resident, the value or expenses falling under any of the following subparagraphs related to the inherited property shall be subtracted from the value of the inherited property:

1. Public imposts;

2. Funeral expenses; and

3. Obligations (excluding donations made by an ancestor to his/her heir within ten years before the commencement date of inheritance, and donations made by an ancestor to a person who is not his/her heir within five years before the commencement date of inheritance; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article);

Enforcement Decree of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 8 (Non-Taxable Inherited Property)

③ 법 제12조 제3호에서 ＂대통령령이 정하는 범위안의 재산＂이라 함은 제사를 주재하는 상속인(다수의 상속인이 공동으로 제사를 주재하는 경우에는 그 공동으로 주재하는 상속인 전체를 말한다)을 기준으로 다음 각호에 해당하는 재산을 말한다. 다만, 제1호 및 제2호의 재산가액의 합계액이 2억원을 초과하는 경우에는 2억원을 한도로 한다.

1. 피상속인이 제사를 주재하고 있던 선조의 분묘(이하 이 조에서 ＂분묘＂라 한다)에 속한 9,900제곱미터이내의 금양임야

2. Farmland of 1,980 square meters or less belonging to a grave.

Civil Act

Article 1008-3 (Succession of Graveyards, etc.)

Ownership of no more than one information pertaining to a grave, farmland of no more than 600 square meters and farmland of no more than 600, arctal and arctal land shall be succeeded by the person presiding over a grave.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on burials

(A) The term “gravetory” means a piece of land that is the cause of the protection, management, or use of a grave and belongs to a specific grave, and the cost of safeguard, management, or removal of a grave shall be raised from harvest acquired by cultivating the soil. Such a tombtory shall be treated separately from the ownership of the land created by a clan to execute and process matters related to the removal of the tomb or its related matters. Accordingly, Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act provides that a tombtory shall not be deemed to be the inheritance of the deceased as the property of the deceased, separate from the property of the deceased, and shall not be deemed to be the inheritance of the deceased. Accordingly, the term “gravetory” refers to a tombto that is already used as a tombtory at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and if any farmland that was not originally used as a tomb is to be used as a grave after the commencement of the inheritance, it shall not be deemed to be a grave that is not included in the taxable value of the inheritance

(B) Meanwhile, as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that ○○○○○○○○○ Foundation’s land was non-taxable inherited property. As to whether ○○○○○○○○ Foundation’s land was farmland located in the Geumyang Forest, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of the instant land as the title of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s land, which was established on the ground of the title of 14-3 evidence No.6, A, 199, and the title of the instant grave on the ground of ownership transfer registration of 17.15.

(2) Determination of obligations

(A) Judgment on July 21, 1994

In full view of Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-3 through 6, 26, and 1 to 23 each statement and testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 41, etc. on November 192, imposing KRW 1 billion on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-○-○-○○-○-○○-198).

(B) Determination of the obligation of May 30, 1995

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-7, 32, 33, 10, 11-1 through 8, and testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6,00,000 won on May 29, 1995, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6,000,000 won.

(C) Amount of debt deducted from the taxable value of inherited property

According to the above facts, this case's tax disposition was imposed upon borrowing 60 million won from Ma○○ on July 21, 1994 and KRW 660 million on May 30, 1995, including KRW 460 million on May 30, 1995. However, as seen above, the defendant imposed each disposition of this case, which deducts 70 million out of the above debt from the taxable value of inheritance tax, from the taxable value of inheritance tax. In full view of the purport of the argument stated in Gap evidence No. 9-2, this case's tax disposition is unlawful since this case's tax disposition was imposed upon Lee○'s repayment of KRW 660 million out of the above debt amount of KRW 30 million,000,000 among the above debt amount of KRW 660 million,000,000,000,000 from the taxable value of inheritance tax of this case. Accordingly, this case's tax disposition is justified.

(3) Calculation of a reasonable amount of tax

Furthermore, the reasonable amount of inheritance tax calculated by deducting KRW 560 million from the amount of inheritance tax of this case is KRW 8,883,395, as stated in the reasonable percentage of inheritance tax, as shown in attached Table 2. If the amount of inheritance tax is calculated according to the Plaintiffs’ ratio of inheritance possession, the portion exceeding the above tax amount should be revoked in an unlawful manner as to the Plaintiff Cho ○○, and KRW 35,340,037 ( KRW 88,883,395, X 60.24%) for the Plaintiff Lee ○, and KRW 35,340,037 for the Plaintiff Lee ○ ( KRW 88,883,395, X39.76%)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are partly reasonable, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.