early 2012west089 (2012.04.04)

not having received a loan to the decedent but constitutes a prior donation.

Since the obligation of the inheritee to be deducted from the value of inherited property belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the taxable value of inheritance, the burden of proving the existence is on the taxpayer who contests the taxable value, and it is difficult to obtain a loan from the inheritor due to lack of funds to purchase real estate, it constitutes donated property in advance.

2012Guhap29233 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

LAA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

March 8, 2013

April 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

On July 6, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing inheritance tax of KRW 000,000 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The bestB (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”) died on April 5, 2009, and his heir did not report the taxable value and tax base of the inherited property by the wife KimCC, the plaintiff, the child, the plaintiff, the lowest, and the leastG.

B. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation conducted from November 15, 201 to April 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax calculated as indicated in the following Table attached to the aggregate of the value of the inherited property on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a return on the sales price of the land and buildings on the land sold in 2001, OOdong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, OOdong, 000 and above ground buildings sold in 200, and the sales price of the land and buildings on the land sold in 2008, and the sales price of the above ground buildings sold in 200 to the heir, including the Plaintiff; and (b) on July 6, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 200 of the inheritance tax calculated as described in the following Table, and the amount recorded in the tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiff is the disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”). (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on January 31, 2012 on September 30, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on April 4, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to Article 3(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), inheritance tax is jointly and severally liable to pay within the extent of property received or to be received by the heir or testamentary donee.

2) Since the Plaintiff received a total of 00 won from the inheritee from December 17, 2001 to August 14, 2008, and no property has been inherited after the inheritee’s death, the Plaintiff constitutes “property acquired from the inheritee”. Meanwhile, on February 3, 2002, the Plaintiff was unable to receive 00 won after leasing the inheritee to the inheritee, which is 00 won (= 000 won - 000 won). As a result of the inheritance tax investigation, the Defendant identified the total amount of inherited property of the inheritee from 00 won, and calculated the inheritance tax base by deducting 00 won from the total amount of inherited property from 00 won, and 200 won from the total amount of inherited property from 00 won to 00 won, and 200 won from the Plaintiff’s total amount of inherited property from 00 won to 00 won, and 200 won from the total amount of inherited property.

3) Even if it is not so domestic, if the Plaintiff’s active property acquired as a result of the Defendant’s inheritance investigation is 000 won in total, and if the Plaintiff’s positive property acquired as a result of the Defendant’s inheritance investigation is 000 won in total, and in this context, 000 won in negative property, such as funeral expenses, and debts, and 000 won in gift tax already paid on January 31, 2008 + KRW 000 in June 30, 200 in + KRW 000 paid on July 29, 201 + KRW 000 in total paid on August 1, 201 + KRW 00 in total paid on August 1, 2011, the scope of joint and several tax liability to be borne by the Plaintiff is 000 won in total. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose KRW 000 in inheritance tax on the Plaintiff as a joint and several taxpayer.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 00 to the decedent

(a)a fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff was donated KRW 00 on December 17, 2001, and KRW 000 on March 13, 2002, and KRW 000 on July 24, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 5, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 14, 2008.

(2) On January 31, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “(2) the decedent, at the time of the request for adjudication, purchased the instant real estate at KRW 000 (contract deposit amount, KRW 000, and KRW 000) from the Plaintiff due to the lack of funds, and repaid KRW 00 as the purchase price after selling the instant real estate in 2008, and deposited KRW 000 to the account of Kim HH, the Plaintiff’s fraud.” (3) According to the sales contract dated January 31, 2002 on the instant real estate, the decedent purchased the instant real estate at KRW 00 (contract deposit amount, KRW 00, and KRW 00) and the remainder payment date is February 15, 2002.”

(4) From the one bank account (Account Number: 000) to December 31, 2001, KRW 000 was deposited at KRW 3,000 in front checks and KRW 27 in front checks in front of 00, and deposited at KRW 00 on August 26, 2008 with the Korean Investment Securities Account in the name of the Plaintiff.

"(5) On February 3, 2002, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent 000 won to the decedent and received it from the decedent, and submitted as evidence the loan certificate (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case") under the name of the decedent on February 3, 2002. In light of the appraisal of whether the loan certificate of this case was made in 2002 or not, the appraisal of whether the document was made in 2002 or not, and the changes in the stamp image with geological and papering, and the changes in the stamp image with seals affixed, it is unreasonable to view the loan certificate of this case as a document being recently being being recently applied, and there was a reply to the appraisal opinion that it was presumed to have been made around around 202, that the document was prepared in 202, and there was no dispute about the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of appraisal of Gap evidence 2-6, Gap evidence 2-6, and 2-3, and each of the appraisal report of each category of documents.

B) Determination

Since an inheritee’s obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the liability of the asserted class on the existence of such obligation shall be deemed to be the person liable for duty payment who contests the taxable value (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983).

In light of the above facts and the above facts, it is difficult to obtain a loan from the plaintiff on February 3, 2002, and the following circumstances, i.e., ① from the one bank account under the plaintiff's name, 000 won substituted from December 31, 2001 to the predecessor was paid or used in paying the purchase price of the real estate of this case. ② The plaintiff did not have any evidence to find that the predecessor, who donated 00 won on December 17, 2001, was insufficient to purchase the real estate of this case, 200 won before and after the above donation date, 3. According to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff's assertion that it was difficult to obtain a loan from the plaintiff on December 3, 2002, 200 won, and it was hard to find that the plaintiff did not have any other evidence to prove that it was 100 won, and that it was difficult to obtain a loan from the decedent on December 31, 2001.

2) As to the scope of the Plaintiff’s joint and several tax liability

A) Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that an inheritor is liable to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree based on the property received or to be received by each inheritor among the inherited property. Article 3(4) of the same Act provides that an inheritor or testamentary donee is jointly liable to pay the inheritance tax to the extent of “property received or to be received by each inheritor or testamentary donee”, and Article 2-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that an inheritor is each

The term "property" means the total amount of assets acquired by inheritance minus the total amount of liabilities and the inheritance tax imposed or payable by inheritance.

B) Comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Eul and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and 3, the total amount of assets acquired by the plaintiff by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's inheritance is 000 won (=the value of inherited property + the value of donated property + 000 won), and the total amount of liabilities is 000 won (=the public charge + funeral expenses + 000 won), and the facts that the inheritance tax imposed on or to be paid by the plaintiff is 0000 won are as seen earlier. Therefore, the scope of the plaintiff's joint and several tax liability is 00 won (=00 won - 0000 won - 00000 won).

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 000,00, which is the unique inheritance tax pursuant to the instant disposition. As to the delinquent amount of other co-inheritors, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant disposition is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 000,000, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. (The Plaintiff asserts that in calculating the scope of joint and several liability for inheritance tax, the gift tax already paid by the Plaintiff should be deducted. However, as seen earlier, Article 2-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount of total liability and the amount of gift tax imposed or to be paid by the heir should be deducted from the total amount of property acquired by inheritance, which is the scope of joint and several liability for inheritance tax, which includes the amount of gift tax calculated by adding the amount of gift tax calculated by adding the amount of gift tax to the amount of gift tax calculated by adding the amount of gift tax calculated by inheritance tax to the total amount of gift tax calculated by inheritance tax or gift tax calculated by adding the amount to each gift tax base.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.