Busan District Court 2014Guhap20118 (20 June 20, 2014)

The amount transferred by exercising the claim for the return of legal reserve among the transferred properties according to the recommendation for compromise shall be inherited property.

(1) The judgment of the court of first instance is just to determine that the amount determined as the part of the property transferred by the exercise of the right to claim a forced portion among the property transferred by the plaintiff et al. according to the decision of recommending reconciliation constitutes inherited property of the inheritee and include it in the taxable value of inherited property.

Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Nu21462 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

Yellow AA

O Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap20118 Decided June 20, 2014

October 1, 2014

November 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On October 4, 2013, the defendant revoked the part exceeding the OOO of the inheritance tax made against the plaintiff (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for the judgment to be used in this case is that the part of the court's judgment is related to the claim for the return of legal reserve from the fifth of the judgment in the first instance to the third of the fifth of the third of the judgment, and the part of the "OOOOO" [the value calculated by multiplying the part of the claim for the return of legal reserve from the 16 portion of the claim by the market value of the 16 real estate (the market value of 16 real estate + the market value of the OO's real estate)] which was returned to the legal reserve by the "OOOO" was converted to the amount at the time of commencing the inheritance (= 0.972548126 (= 16 real estate x OO's market value at the time of recommending the settlement of 16 real estate + OOO's market value at the time of commencing the inheritance)", and the part of the claim for return of legal reserve from the part of the previous OOO which was converted to the amount of the judgment.

(The plaintiff basically repeats the same arguments in the first instance court. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable even if the plaintiff considers the allegations and the reasons why some supplementations have been made in the trial, and the statement of evidence No. 4-1 to No. 3 and No. 5 newly submitted are examined.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.