Whether it constitutes a debt to be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property

Since part of inherited property falls under the obligation aimed at inherited property, it shall be imposed by deducting the amount of debt from the taxable value of inherited property, but the inheritance tax imposed without deducting it is illegal disposal.

Article 14 (2) 2 and 3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply to public charges, etc. deductible from the value of inherited property.

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records and the judgment of the court below. Since it is clear that the grounds of appeal by the appellant fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the

[Tgu High Court 2006Nu911 (Law No. 12, 2007)]

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 117,052,570 on October 6, 2004, in excess of KRW 73,852,569, among the imposition disposition of KRW 117,052,570, and the imposition disposition of KRW 78,035,046, each of which exceeds KRW 49,235,046, among the imposition disposition of KRW 78,035,046, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts in each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1 through 4, 5-2, 1, 2-1, 1, 2-1, 2-3, and 3-1 through 5, 4-1, 2, 5, 6-1, 6-1, 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the previous body of pleadings.

A. A. Around April 7, 200, 200, 000 OOO ○○○○○, 329-12 large 356.3 square meters, and the five-story ○○○○○○○, and the five-story 2 of the above ground, were the owners of 541-10 large 33.98 square meters, who were living in Japan. At the time, the heir was deceased on April 7, 200. At the time, the heir was the Plaintiff Kim ○ and his child, who is the wife residing in Korea, and the Plaintiff △△△△△, who is the child residing in Japan, and the Plaintiff △△△△△, ○, △△△△, and

B. As to each of the above real estate inherited property, the Plaintiffs agreed to hold 3/7 shares, Plaintiff △△△△, and △△△ with respect to ownership of 2/7 shares, respectively, and completed inheritance registration around October 31, 2003, but did not file an inheritance report.

C. Accordingly, the defendant around June 2004 determined the standard market value of inherited property as KRW 870,292,061 (OO's O ○○○○, KRW 329-12,568,00 + KRW 369,651,251 + KRW 369,651,251 of the leisure building + KRW 541-10, KRW 16,072,540 of the OO-dong 2) at the taxable value and notified the plaintiffs on October 6, 2004.

D. The plaintiffs appealed and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on October 21, 2004. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided that 20,000,000 won should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, which is the lessee of the rooftop part among the inn building, should be corrected by deducting the tax base and tax amount from the taxable value of inherited property. Accordingly, on March 24, 2005, the defendant assessed the inherited property value of KRW 850,292,061, and corrected the inheritance tax to KRW 273,122,664, as stated in the revised tax amount table of the above "the revised tax amount of inheritance tax" (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") as stated in the "the revised tax amount of the inheritance tax amount of KRW 273,122,664, Oct. 24, 2005.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit to ○○○○, and the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit to ○○○, respectively, was in excess of KRW 10,000,00,000. This claim that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant's obligation to pay the lease deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit to ○○○, but it constitutes a obligation to pay the lease deposit and the obligation to pay the property under Article 14 (2) 2 and 3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 202; hereinafter "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") and Article 14 (2) 2 and 3 of the former Inheritance Tax Act or a right of retention for the purpose of inherited property, although it should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the following facts, by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements as referred to in subparagraphs 5 through 21, 3, 4-1, 2, 3, 6-1 through 5, 9, 11, 8-1, 8-1 through 8 of the evidence as referred to in subparagraph 2-1, 12, 10-1, 12, 10-1, 11-1, and 2 of the evidence as referred to in subparagraphs 9-1, 9-1, 12, 10-1, 3, and 11-2, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) On October 15, 1987, ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “YO○○”) purchased OO-Gu O ○○-dong 329-12, 356.3m2, and 5m2 above the ground from 110.00,000 won out of the purchase price from YO○○ and 110.00,000 won out of the purchase price, and decided to continue the inn business, instead of the lease deposit for the inn building. On July 198, 198, YO○ demanded the deceased to refund the above lease deposit to ○○○○-dong building from around September 15, 198, and the deceased returned the above lease deposit to 00,000 won to ○○-○ and 100,000 won out of the purchase price, and the deceased returned the lease deposit to ○○-owned and 100,000 won out of the loan site.

(2) After that, from September 20 to October 20 of the same year, from around 1998 to around 20, 120,000 won of the deceased performed construction work inside the guest room of the female house. The deceased was unable to prepare funds for the above construction work because the lease of the female building has not been continued. On October 28, 1988, around 230,000,000 won including the above collateral security debt amount and the construction cost, etc. were replaced with the lease deposit, and requested a pregnant ○○ to continuously change the inn business without monthly rent. From around that time, ○○ accepted the above request, ○○ engaged in the inn business under the name of the proprietor from October 2, 198 to October 20, 198, and maintained ○○○ under the name of the proprietor from October 2, 198 to December 29, 198.

(3) From around 1992, YO demanded the deceased to return the lease deposit, but the deceased requested to prepare a lease contract on the dominian building continuously in progress. The deceased issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 230,000,000 at around November 23, 1995 and issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 230,000.

(4) From April 1993, 1993, Ma○○ engaged in multiple types of work on the underground part of the inn building. Around July 1997, 197, he/she would later pay construction expenses from the deceased. In doing so upon the request of the deceased for the repair work of the inn room, he/she carried out the repair work of the inn room at KRW 10,000,000. However, while he/she continued multiple types of work without the above construction payment from the deceased, he/she received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff Kim○○ and ordered the above multiple types of work.

(5) Around May 18, 2005, no separate legal remedy is exercised against the deceased while continuing possession of a female building. Around May 18, 2005, the deceased was dead, and the execution of provisional attachment was completed for the female building and its site. Around that time, the Plaintiffs requested the payment of the lease deposit and construction cost, etc. while explaining the reasons why the building was leased from the deceased and the reasons why the construction cost was paid. However, around 2003, the Plaintiffs and ○○, ○○, and ○○○○ was 20000,000, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on March 11, 2004. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(6) On February 9, 2004, prior to the pronouncement of the above judgment, ○○ received KRW 2,000,000 in cash from the Plaintiff Kim○○○, and received KRW 98,00,000 on the same day as the deposit account, and KRW 25,000,000 on March 18, 206, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, KRW 50,000 on January 4, 2006, and KRW 55,000,000 on each of the remittances.

D. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 14(2) and 14(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in the event inheritance commences due to the death of a nonresident, any lien, pledge, and mortgage on the inherited property located in the Republic of Korea shall be deducted from the value of the inherited property in taxation of the inherited property of the non-resident, as well as any obligation secured with the purpose of the inherited property, as well as any deposit and obligation for business, etc. borne by the deceased for the purpose of the inherited property. As seen earlier, as seen in the foregoing, KRW 230,00,000, and KRW 10,000,000, which were borne by the deceased against YOO shall be deducted from the value of the inherited property, on the ground that it constitutes a debt secured with a lien

(2) Furthermore, the reasonable amount of inheritance tax to be paid by the plaintiffs shall be KRW 172,322,663 (the amount less than the cost for the convenience of calculation shall be discarded; hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW 240,00,000 from the deceased's inherited property value as stated in the "justifiable Amount of Inheritance Tax Calculation Table" column, and as seen earlier, the plaintiffs divided their inherited property through consultation. Accordingly, the specific amount of inheritance tax to be paid by the plaintiffs shall be the amount of KRW 73,852,569 (172,322,663, X3/7), Plaintiff △△△△, △△△△△, △△△, △63,06 (172,322,663, X263/7).

(3) Therefore, the part of the Defendant’s disposition that exceeds the above legitimate amount of tax, i.e., the part that exceeds 73,852,570 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 117,052,570 against Plaintiff Kim ○, and the part that exceeds 49,235,046 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 78,03,852,56 of the inheritance tax against Plaintiff △△, △△, and △△, respectively, of the disposition of imposition of KRW 78,03

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be accepted because all of the claims in this case are reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.