title trust held by an ancestor, which constitutes inherited property;

In full view of the fact that the proceeds from the lease of real estate generated from land and buildings are deposited only into the account under the name of the decedent, and that the plaintiff seems to have no financial resources to acquire shares, it constitutes inherited property, which is a nominal trust by the decedent

2013Guhap13198 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

1.A 2. GinB 3. GinCC

Head of Seocho Tax Office

September 16, 2013

November 1, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On February 27, 2012, the defendant revoked the part of the imposition disposition of the inheritance tax OOOO as against the plaintiffs exceeding the OOOO won.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As KimD (hereinafter “the decedent”) died on December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff U.A., KimE, his wife, and the Plaintiff KimB, and KimCC jointly inherited the decedent’s property.

B. On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiffs and KimE reported the taxable value of inherited property to the Defendant as OOO, OOO, and the amount of tax payable, respectively.

C.1) As a result of the inheritance tax investigation conducted with respect to the decedent from December 13, 2010 to October 13, 201, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) on July 18, 2001, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined that the share of 1/2 out of the 1271-6 large 3,237.7m2 in the name of the decedent is the head of the FF; (b) on the part of the decedent, the decedent, the head of the FF, and the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office reported the ownership transfer registration for 34-2 large 1,570m2 of the OE under the name of the deceased; (c) on the part of the 3G owner of each of the instant building, the ownership registration for the 1/4G owner of each of the instant shares in the name of the deceased and the 3G owner of each of the instant shares in the name of the deceased, the ownership registration for the 1/4G owner of each of each of the instant building.

2) Accordingly, on February 27, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the inheritance tax OOO(including additional tax) to the Plaintiffs (the Plaintiff is entitled to revoke the instant disposition on the premise that the part of OOO(i.e., OOO-OOO(s) in the imposition of the said inheritance tax constitutes inheritance tax on the instant share, on the premise that the said part of OOOO-OOO(s) constitutes inheritance tax on the instant share, by asserting the following unlawful grounds, and thus, the part of OOO(s) is referred to as “the instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 7, 2012 on May 23, 2012, but was dismissed on February 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), entry of Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

On July 24, 1985, the decedent, head of the FF, and KimGG purchased 1/3 shares of the instant land for the purpose of jointly running the real estate leasing business and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land. However, around September 24, 1987, KimGG intended to withdraw from the Dong business relationship, and the decedent recommended the Plaintiff KimB to purchase the instant shares in the name of KimGG. The Plaintiff KimB purchased the instant shares from KimGGG on August 8, 1988, on the premise that the decedent would succeed to the obligation to refund the rental deposit of the Plaintiff, and the remainder of the OGG purchased the instant shares on the premise that the decedent acquired the ownership of the instant real estate under the premise that the ownership of the instant property should be sold after the purchase of the ownership of the instant property.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of the real estate sales contract (Evidence 4) of August 8, 1988 in the name of KimG, the assignee, and the receipt (Evidence 5) of August 26, 198 in the name of KimG and KimG, the decedent, the headF, and the Plaintiff KimB, whose name was entered in KimB as the Plaintiff KimB, are as follows:

A real estate sales contract.

2. Transfer amount;

OOOB: Provided, That the amount of the lease deposit borne by KimG as of the date of the contract shall be succeeded by the plaintiff KimB and the remainder of the OOB shall be paid in two installments.

(1) OOO directors when concluding a contract.

2. OOO on August 26, 198

Receipts shall be received.

OOOE

The remainder of the purchase price of the instant land and buildings is the remainder, and the balance of three apartments 5 and 811 is settled by she (referring to GG) on behalf of she.

A contract for a partnership business.

The building of this case is owned by the decedent, headF, plaintiff KimB, and some of the first floor, the first floor, the second floor, and the second floor are leased, and the remainder is distributed to 1/3 of the shares in their own possession, by opening the wedding hall business. However, the operation and management refers to the execution by the decedent's representative, and the actual expenses for the operation is paid from the above lease income and the wedding hall income.

2) Plaintiff KimB asked the International Law Research Institute for an appraisal as to whether the pertinent real estate sales contract and receipt, and the same business contract were made in around 1988. On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff KimB respondeded with the content that “The said Institute cannot be seen as being made up in the near 1988 because each of the above documents cannot be seen as being made up in the near 198.”

3) On July 16, 1991, the name of the decedent (33.34%) (34%) Plaintiff KimB (33.33%) and the headF (33.33%) registered business with the name of "OO-Gu O-dong 534-2", "J building for the place of business", "J building", "real estate business", and "store".

4) Real estate lease income generated from the instant land and building was deposited only into an account under the name of the decedent, and value-added tax, income tax, public charges, etc. were paid from the said account.

5) Plaintiff KimB paid the comprehensive income tax on the real estate rental income accrued from the instant land and building as the owner’s qualifications for the instant shares. In addition, around May 1995, Plaintiff KimB reported that he/she was the owner of the instant shares in Ansan City Mayor and paid the aggregate land tax (property tax after abolition of the aggregate land tax).

6) Plaintiff KimB was born on August 30, 1964, and was studying in the United States without any particular income at the time of 1988, and entered the Republic of Korea on April 22, 198, but on December 23, 198.

7) The decedent, KimE, Plaintiff UA, and KimB shared 60-8 forest land 1,100 square meters in O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 3, 711, 811, 911, 1010, 1109, and 11111.

「피상속인, 김EE, 원고 유AA, 김BB가 OO시 OO구 OO동 III아파트 5동 711호, 811호, 911호, 1010호, 1109호, 1111호를 공유하다가 이KK, 김LL, 김MM, 유NN, 이PP, 김QQ에게 양도하였다」는 등의 내용의 OO제2구역 주택개량재개발조합 조합장 명의의 1989. 8. 30.자 사실확인서(갑 제8호증)가 작성되었다.

8) On October 21, 2011, KimE prepared a written confirmation (No. 6) stating that “Isn and Don OO-gu OO-gu OE 1 returned to a real owner of 1271-6 large 3,237.7 square meters of the instant land and building and Ospam 1271-6 large 3,237.7 square meters of the instant building and Ospam her own, and that Ispam her, Ispam (referring to the Plaintiff, Ispam (referring to the Plaintiff KimB), and that Ispam and her punishment would make the said real estate owned by Ispam.”

9) On October 14, 201, KimG made an investment in real estate in the process of the construction of a new building on the above ground in 1987, after acquiring 1/3 shares of the decedent, headF, and principal each of the instant land in 1986, KimG acquired a new building on the above ground in 1987, but the principal did not have any financial capacity, and transferred the ownership of the land to OOO or OOOOOO, the decedent paid the money for the transfer of ownership, and there was a difference between the seal imprint and the seal imprint, and the sales contract was stated. The building of this case was completed under the first supervision of the decedent, and was delivered to the public official after preparing a survey on the particulars that he did not own the land (No. 7).

The plaintiffs asserted that KimG had newly constructed the building in this case and sold the above shares to the plaintiff KimB while withdrawing from the partnership relationship after acquiring 1/3 of the building in this case, and that during the course of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiffs submitted the letter of consent of January 1, 1987 (Evidence A5) in the name of the decedent, headF, and KimG stating that the construction cost in the construction of the building on the ground of the land in this case was first borne by the decedent, and that the building cost in this case was agreed to the construction on the condition that the decedent would recover the construction cost from the rental deposit after the completion of the construction and lease.

10) On April 30, 1997, the Plaintiff KimCC filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of cancellation of ownership against Suwon on October 22, 2010, asserting that on May 12, 1997, KimE completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land without any authority, he/she received a donation of OO 137-6 forest land 1,273 square meters from the decedent, OO OO OO OO-gun, OO-gun, OE, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 12, 1997. On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff KimE filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership cancellation with the Suwon District Court 2010da79523. On June 27, 2011, OE applied for the registration of ownership cancellation against the above land by the Plaintiff Kim Chang-gun District Court (OO 2010dan 956, OO566, 2015.

On the other hand, on July 14, 2010, Plaintiff KimB filed a claim for loans against KimE under Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap72194, but withdrawn the lawsuit on April 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 16, Eul evidence No. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant shares constitute inherited property of the inheritee, as they were trusted by the decedent to KimG, and the circumstance or evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiffs asserted that KimB would withdraw from the Dong business relationship when the decedent, headF, and KimGG jointly owned the instant land and buildings, and that the Plaintiff KimB purchased the shares of KimG. The above assertion is premised on the premise that the headF actually owned one-third shares of each of the instant land and buildings. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the shares of one-third shares in the name of the headF among the instant land and buildings were owned by the decedent and held a title trust with the headF; (b) deemed that the decedent held a title trust with the headF; and (c) the Plaintiffs did not object to the instant lawsuit; and (d) the Plaintiffs did not object to the instant lawsuit [the headF claimed that he/she is the owner of one-third shares of each of the instant land and buildings, and that he/she is the owner of each one-third shares of each of the instant land and buildings, and that the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the instant claim for the division of the instant land and buildings under the name of the head of the Seoul High Court under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea.

② On October 14, 2011, KimGG transferred its shares (1/3) in the instant land to the inheritee prior to the construction of the instant building. After that, the decedent demanded transfer of ownership and the certificate of personal seal impression to the decedent, and then issued the same upon the demand of the decedent to transfer ownership. The sales contract is written out and delivered to the investigating public official, which means that there is no fact that the decedent acquired ownership of the 1/3 shares in the instant building or sold the instant shares to the Plaintiff KimB. In addition, on October 21, 2011, KimGE issued to the investigating public official a written confirmation that the decedent was the actual owner of the instant land and building. After the decedent’s death, Plaintiff UAB and KimB issued a written confirmation that the decedent was the decedent’s ownership of the instant land and building, but it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs were the Plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that there was no false confirmation or false confirmation of the content that the Plaintiffs asserted during the instant lawsuit.

③ The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff KimB purchased the instant shares from KimB on August 8, 198, and paid OB out of the purchase price by succeeding to the obligation to refund the deposit for the lease of KimG, and that the remaining OB sold the ownership of 5-dong 811, OB at OB at OB, OB, III apartment 5-dong 81. However, the Plaintiff KimB did not appear to have acquired the ownership of 1,100 square meters of OB at OB, OB-dong 60-8 1,100 square meters of 1,80 square meters of 1978.4.11, 1978. At that time, the Plaintiff KimB did not appear to have acquired the ownership of 8-dong 1,50 square meters of OB as the owner of 15-dong 15 (the co-owner Kim apartment 8, 1971) as the owner of 15-dong 1,500,000.

④ The real estate lease income accrued from the instant land and building was deposited only into the account in the name of the decedent.

⑤ The reason why Plaintiff KimB paid the aggregate land tax for the instant shares is not because the tax authority recognized Plaintiff KimB as the owner of the instant shares, but because Plaintiff KimB reported that Plaintiff KimB was the actual owner of the instant shares.

④ As at the time of August 8, 198, the value of 1/3 of the instant land reaches approximately KRW OO or KRW OB (in comparison with the officially assessed individual land price in 1990, it is difficult to readily understand that Plaintiff KimB purchased the instant shares from KimG for one-third of each of the instant land and buildings from KRW 1/3 of the instant shares.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.