logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.06 2015구합4907
상속세부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 53,817,680 against the Plaintiff on March 20, 2014 is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around March 15, 2006, Plaintiff’s attached B and Plaintiff’s former wife C (Divorce on July 22, 2005) jointly sold KRW 1,753,904,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 2008, respectively, by specifying the above 102 Dong 102 Dong and 802 Dong 102 (hereinafter “instant 102 Dong”) from Masco Construction Co., Ltd.

B. On August 26, 2012, the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant 802-1/2 shares as a result of the death of B, and assessed the value of inherited property as KRW 616,00,000, which is the standard market price on February 28, 2013, and reported and paid the inheritance tax.

C. As a result of an inheritance tax investigation conducted with respect to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013, the Defendant assessed the market price of KRW 850,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) inherited from B as the market price of the instant apartment shares of KRW 802,00,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 53,817,680 on March 20, 2014, by deeming that the sale price of the instant apartment shares inherited from B was the value of inherited property under the instant sales contract, upon confirming that the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the remaining 1/2 shares of KRW 802 from C (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an objection on June 11, 2014, but was dismissed. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on January 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 through 12, 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely stating KRW 850,00,000, for convenience, as the sales price of the instant case, KRW 1/2 of the sales price of the instant No. 802, while purchasing the instant shares in the process of arranging a de facto de facto marital relationship with C, and is actually named as the sales price to C.

arrow