2011 Heavy2681 ( March 14, 2013)

Based on a written agreement, monetary transaction details, etc., it can be recognized as debts at the time of inheritance.

In respect of the agreement and the details of monetary transactions, the statements of the parties, etc., it can be recognized as debts of the inheritee at the time of inheritance.

2012Guhap7692 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

1. The HongA 2.B

Head of Suwon Tax Office

January 16, 2013

January 30, 2013

1. On May 12, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the KRW OO of inheritance tax for the Plaintiffs in 2009 is revoked that exceeds the KRW OO of inheritance tax.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same is as the disposition (the plaintiff stated the date of disposition on March 30, 2012 in the application for correction of the purport of the claim as of January 15, 2013 of this case, but comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the date of disposition is May 12, 201).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. CC (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) is the husband of the Plaintiff Hong A and the father of the Plaintiff B, died on or around June 22, 2009; b. 1) the Deceased, on April 27, 2006, entered into a sale contract for the sale of 38 forest land 5,179 square meters and 39-3 forest 14,864 square meters and 20,043 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands before the instant land division”) with 3,00 [9,917 square meters; b. 38-29,69, and 39,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “O-239,000 square meters”) with respect to each of the instant lands divided into 70,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land before the instant division”); and 30,000 square meters of forest and fields (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest and fields”).

3) On August 5, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 22, 2009 in the name of the Plaintiff HongA on each of the instant lands before the instant partition.

C. (1) On October 9, 2009, Plaintiff RedA entered into a sales contract with NowonG to sell KRW 8,070 square meters for purchase price of KRW 1,969 square meters for KRW 38 forest 5,179 square meters for forest 38 square meters prior to the said division, and between KRW 39-3 forest 14,864 square meters prior to the said division, 8,070 square meters for purchase price of KRW 00 for KRW 1,320 for KRW 00 for KRW 00,000 for KRW 0,000 for purchase price. Plaintiff HongA and NowonG confirmed that there was no objection in depositing 00,000 won for the total purchase price of KRW 00 for KRW 00,000 for KRW 1,969 for KRW 39,00 for KRW 14,00 for KRW 39,00 for each of the instant provisional dispositions.

D. 1) Around December 15, 2009, FFrisan 38,179 square meters of forest land prior to the said subdivision was divided into 3,510 square meters of forest land and 1 land prior to the said subdivision. The FFrisan 38,510 square meters of forest land prior to the said subdivision was divided into 3,510 square meters of forest land and 3,510 square meters of forest land prior to the said subdivision into 38 square meters of forest land and 3,215 square meters of forest land and 3,215 square meters of forest land and 295 square meters of forest and 295 square meters of forest land prior to the said subdivision.

2) Before the said subdivision, FFrisan39-3 Forest land of 14,864 square meters was divided into 15.15.2, 2009; FFrisan39-10 forest land of 5,174 square meters prior to the said subdivision; the FFrisan39-10 forest land of 5,174 square meters prior to the said subdivision was divided into 2,39-10 forest of Frisan39-10 forest of 2,393 square meters; Fririsan39-15 forest of 2,781 square meters.

E. 1) On December 16, 2009, Norway obtained land transaction permission for the land Nos. 1 and 3 from the Sungsung market. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff HongA entered into a sales contract with Nowon on December 17, 2009 to sell the land Nos. 1 and 3 for the purchase price OO won. As for the land Nos. 1 and 3 of December 30, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 17, 2009 in the name of NowonG.

2) On March 19, 2010, NowonG obtained land transaction permission for the second land from the Sungsung market. On March 20, 2010, Plaintiff HongG entered into a sales contract with NowonG to sell the second land to OOO won. On March 20, 2010, on April 20, 2010, the transfer registration for the second land was completed on March 20, 2010.

(f) NoGG deposited KRW OO (Account Number: O-O-O-OOOO) in the name of ED on October 9, 2009, KRW OO directors on December 16, 2009, KRW OO directors on December 30, 2009, KRW OO directors on April 1, 2010, KRW OO directors, KRW OO directors on April 2, 2010, KRW OO directors, and KRW OO directors on April 8, 2010, and deposited KRW OO directors in the name of ED + O directors + KRW O won + O won on April 8, 2010.

G. (1) On December 21, 2009, Plaintiff HongA reported the inheritance tax to the Defendant by having the total value of the inherited property of each of the instant parcels of land as the value of the inherited property, the officially assessed value of the inherited property, as the OOO, as the total value of the inherited property, as the OOO, and the inheritance tax was reported as the OOO on the debt of OD as the OO.

2) After conducting an inheritance tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff HongA, the director of the Central District Tax Office assessed the amount of inherited property of each of the instant lands before subdivision as an OOOO in total by applying the inheritance tax transaction example, etc., and determined the amount of debt to be sold to DoD among the KRW 1,2, and the value of the instant land, which is the value of the instant land, which is the value of the instant land to be sold to DoD among the KRW OOO of which is the selling amount for NAG, and notified the Defendant of the content thereof.

3) Accordingly, on May 12, 2011, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiffs on May 2, 2009 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (it appears that the Defendant ordered the PlaintiffB to jointly pay the amount within the scope of property received or to be received by the Deceased pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010).

H. (1) The Plaintiff HongA is dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on July 18, 201, asserting that: (a) the value of inherited property of FFrisan 39-10 forest and 2,393 square meters, which was divided into the FFri 38 Forest and 5,179 square meters before the said division, and FFri 38 square meters, and FFri 39-3 forest and 14,864 square meters before the said division, should be assessed as the officially announced value; and (b) in order to repay the decedent’s debt to EFD, the said money should be directly paid to EFG for EF 1,2, and 3 land to EF OO; and (c) since EGG paid the said money to EF OO, it should be recognized as the deceased’s debt at the time of inheritance commencement.

"2) On March 14, 2012, the Tax Tribunal accepted Plaintiff HongA’s assertion, and assessed the value of inherited property of 3,215 square meters and 3,215 square meters and 2,39-10 square meters in FFririsan as a publicly assessed land price under the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate, and decided to rectify the tax base and tax amount and dismissed the remainder of the claims." (i) On March 30, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction order that reduces the initial disposition against the Plaintiffs as OO members (hereinafter “the initial disposition of imposition remaining after reduction”) in accordance with the purport of the said judgment (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”). (No dispute exists, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7-1, 2, evidence No. 8, 9-1, 30, evidence No. 1, 30-1, and 4-1, evidence No.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

After entering into the instant sales contract, the Deceased knew that the address of ED and EE did not meet the requirements for residence in the status of ED and EE, and that it was impossible to obtain land transaction permission due to the creation of grassland on each of the instant land before the instant partition, and that it was possible to recover the forest, etc., the Deceased died under an agreement with ED and EE to return the purchase price amount received from ED and EE as the purchase price after selling each of the instant land to a third party. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs agreed to cancel the instant sales contract with ED and EE on September 19, 2009, and agreed to cancel the agreement between ED and E, and the Plaintiff’s settlement and agreement between EOOOOO and OOOOOO as the total amount borrowed from EOD and EOO, etc., and thereafter, it should be deemed that the portion exceeds EOO or EO is subject to disposition, and thus, it shall be deemed that the portion exceeds EOOO or EO is subject to disposition, and thus, it shall be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(3) After the completion of the registration of the establishment of the title of the deceased 2, 00, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000,000 won, 200,000,000 won, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, the part exceeding the OOO of the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.