Whether the calculation of the real estate value, which is an inherited property, is lawful

In full view of facts, 5,802,80 won exceeding 123,981,340 won out of the inheritance tax notified in this case 129,784,140 won is illegal.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On March 4, 1998, the part of the instant lawsuit that the Defendant sought revocation of the inheritance tax disposition against Nonparty A, JeonB, JeonCC, JeonD, JeonE, JeonF, HaG, HaG, Jeon H, Jeon II, and JeonJ on March 4, 1998.2. On March 4, 1998, the Defendant revoked the part exceeding KRW 123,981,340 of the inheritance tax imposition disposition against the Plaintiff on March 4, 1998.3. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. 4.0% of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 19, 20-1, 2, 25-1 through 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 through 12, 6, 9 through 10-3, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. On September 28, 1993, the non-party 27/153, the wife of Non-party 1, who died on September 28, 1993, and the non-party 2, the wife of Non-party 18/153, and the non-party 18/153, the non-party 18/153, the son of Non-party 18/153, the son of Non-party 18/153, the son, the son of Non-party 1, the son, the former II, and the formerJ jointly inherited the 4/153 each of their properties.

(b) On March 24, 1994, the Plaintiff filed a report on the amount of 4,109,96,150 won (3,107,912,150 won + movable property 2,054,00 won + 4662, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) under Article 4 of the Inheritance Tax Act and the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), on behalf of the inheritors, 3,139,280,970 won (public charges 30,224,450 + 3,080 won for annual installments, 208, 306, 006, 000 won for annual installments, 406, 006, 006, 000 won for annual installments, 308 won, 006, 0001 won for annual installments.

C. In determining the amount of inheritance tax on April 1, 1995, the Defendant denied part of the Plaintiff’s return and determined the amount of inheritance tax on the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, the Defendant calculated the amount of inheritance tax on the basis of KRW 4,361,048,091, and the amount of the additional amount under Article 7-2 of the Act, 943,685,290, and the amount of the additional amount under Article 4 of the Act, 2,205,021,850, and the deduction amount under Article 11 of the Act, as 600,000,04,715,191, and calculated the amount of inheritance tax on the basis of KRW 1,452,593,355, and calculated the amount of inheritance tax on the basis of KRW 101,361,298,75,719,79,74,719,75,719,75, and 194,7,75,7,7,294,7,7,5, and15,7

D. The plaintiff raised an objection on May 31, 1995. The Daegu director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office recognized the deduction of KRW 10,00,00 as to the obligation to return the deposit for the return of the deposit for the non-party publicL, added by Article 7-2 of the Act on June 28, 1995. Accordingly, on August 1, 1995, the defendant deducted the obligation to the above publicL from the obligation to the above publicL, and made a mistake in the tax credit in the initial disposition, as described in the first correction disposition column of the above tax calculation sheet, the inheritance tax base was 3,034,715,191 won, and the total amount determined was 1,653,380,159 won (the amount increased by KRW 87,972,248 won higher than the initial disposition), each of the plaintiff's voluntary payment was 393,896,410 won after deducting the amount of the tax for the first disposition of the inheritance tax amount as KRW 1939,194,19496.7.

E. On July 13, 1996, the National Tax Tribunal accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim on July 13, 1996, and recognized that the Defendant calculated part of the inheritance tax base at the time of the initial disposition. The Defendant calculated the amount of KRW 89,175,445 (Funeral expenses + KRW 1,040,000 + KRW 2,000, nursing expenses, KRW 1,200,00, KRW 1,2000, KRW 760, KRW 760, KRW 9767, KRW 975, KRW 967, KRW 967, KRW 965, KRW 967, KRW 97, KRW 966, KRW 97, KRW 965, KRW 97, KRW 966, KRW 97, KRW 976, KRW 97, KRW 975, KRW 966, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 9756, KRW 97566665, May 25, 7, 97666, etc.).

F. Around July 1997, the Defendant recognized that 280,000,000, total amount of 380,000,000,000 won and 100,000,000,000,000 won and the debt of financial institutions, which the Plaintiff received from the inheritee by ex officio revocation notice by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, as gift tax base was entered in the third correction order of the above tax calculation sheet, as the inheritance tax base was entered in the item in the third correction order of the above tax calculation sheet, 2,439,95,96,90, total amount of 1,325,328,58 (the amount of the second correction order was reduced by 16,374,208,000 won, less than the amount of the second correction order), and calculated the remaining amount of 9,432,148,000 won after deducting the taxes paid by the Plaintiff, etc. by each inheritor, as inheritance tax amount of 3).

G. On March 4, 1998, the Defendant, as an inheritance obligation, denied the above-mentioned amount of KRW 380,00,000 on the ground that the above-paid donation obligation had already been deducted from the value of inherited property and had been deducted twice. However, the amount of KRW 265,076,854, which is the balance after deducting the amount of KRW 114,923,146 from the public charge due to the recognition of the above-paid donation, shall be included in the value of inherited property, and the reported tax amount shall be corrected to correct the reported tax amount of KRW 2,705,03,84 and the total determined tax amount shall be calculated as KRW 1,519,061,654 (the amount of the third revised tax amount shall be increased by KRW 193,73,096, the amount of the above-paid donation tax shall be calculated as KRW 193,000,000,0000,000,0000.

2. Judgment on the dismissed part of the lawsuit

The plaintiff is also seeking the revocation of the portion of the tax disposition in this case against the non-party who is other co-inheritors as well as the part against the plaintiff among other co-inheritors. Therefore, the appeal litigation is only a person who has a direct and specific interest in law due to an administrative disposition, and there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit. The plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for tax payment with respect to the inheritance tax of other co-inheritors according to the ratio of possession of the property received or to be received by himself/herself pursuant to Article 18 (1) of the Act. However, this is related to the performance of tax obligations and it is not related to the establishment and confirmation of tax obligations, and each specific tax obligation is established individually, and it is not deemed that the plaintiff has a de facto indirect interest in the tax disposition by other co-inheritors. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the revocation of the tax disposition against the above non-party among the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 198Nu1818, May 18, 1988).

3. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

(a) Calculation of the value of real estate located in Jung-gu Busan, Busan, 2 instigates 49-31;

Although the plaintiff filed a lawful report on the value of real estate located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, 253,223,040 won based on the standard market price, which is inherited property, the defendant denied the above value and calculated the value as KRW 327,235,290 by the method prescribed in subparagraph 6 of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14,082, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply). This is unlawful as it infringes on the people's property rights and equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the value of the above inherited property should be calculated based on the standard market price as reported by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, Article 9(1) and (4)4 of the Act and Article 5-2 subparag. 6 of the Decree provide that the value of the property, the lease contract of which has been entered into or the right to lease of which has been registered, shall be calculated by dividing the rent for one year by the rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in consideration of the interest rate of one-year term deposit at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and the amount calculated by adding the lease deposit and the current status at the time of commencement of the inheritance, whichever is larger. In fact, in the case of the property, the lease contract is entered into or the right to lease is registered, and the amount calculated by the above method is determined at a lower price than the actual price of the real estate. If the actual transaction price is lower than the price calculated by the above method, it can be calculated by the actual transaction price. Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed as an unlawful provision that infringes the people's property rights and the right to equality, and there is no evidence that the actual market price is calculated by the above method.

(b) Use, etc. of debts incurred within two years before the commencement of the inheritance;

(1) Addition of inherited property pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Act

Article 7-2(2)1 and Article 3(1)2 of the Decree. 0.1 of the Act provides that the amount of debts borne by the ancestor is 100 million won or more within 2 years prior to the commencement date of the inheritance; 0.2 of the above Act provides that the amount of debts owed by the ancestor is not verified due to the lack of transaction documents (Article 3(1)1 of the Decree); 0.3 of the Act provides that the other party to the transaction denies the receipt of money, etc. or the other party to the transaction is not recognized as having a special relationship with the decedent (Article 3(1)2 of the Decree); 0.3 of the Act provides that the amount of debts owed by the decedent shall be returned to 0.10,000 won or more; 0.3 of the Act provides that the amount of debts owed by the decedent shall be returned to 90,000 won or more; 9.3 of the Act provides that the amount of debts owed by the decedent shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under Article 4; 10.5.3 of the Act

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) Whether it was a debt accrued two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance

The plaintiff asserts that the above amount of KRW 70,000,000, out of the total amount of KRW 85,000,000,000,000, which was the total amount of the deposit for the lease against the non-party Hen, was not the amount to be added to the inherited property pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Act. However, the plaintiff argued that the above amount of KRW 70,00,00,00 is not the amount to be added to the inherited property pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Act, but the testimony of Gap's evidence No. 17-5 and witness PP as corresponding thereto cannot be trusted in light of the statement No. 5-4 of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the above amount of KRW 85,00,000,000 was the debt incurred around April 1992 and around August 1993, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(B) Whether the source of debt is obvious

(1) Water treatment expenses and nursing expenses.

First of all, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant paid 14,00,000 won per month to the non-party O during the period from September 1991 to March 1992 as the place where the above debts were used by the deceased, and that the defendant paid 5,500,000 won for the nursing expenses between September 30, 191 and March 30, 1992, and that the defendant paid 2,000 won for the above debts to the non-party O during the period from September 2, 1991 to March 2, 1992. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the above debts incurred within 2,000 won for the above debts incurred within 190,000 won for the first time during the period from September 30, 1991 to March 30, the plaintiff's assertion that the above debts incurred within 20,000 won for the above debts incurred within 2,000,000 won for the above reasons.

(2) Interest on borrowed money

In full view of the statements of evidence No. 11-3 (the evidence No. 3-3) and the whole purport of the pleading in the testimony of the witness PP, it can be recognized that the decedent paid KRW 37,258,212 to the sum of the interest during the period from December 17, 1992 to September 28, 193 borrowed from the non-party 250,000 won under the name of the non-party MF, which was taken into account in the name of the non-party MF, as the place of using the above debt, to the place of using the above debt. Thus, the above amount should be deducted from the inherited property as the place of using the debt.

In addition to the above money, the Plaintiff asserts that, from September 29, 1993 to October 16, 1993, the amount of KRW 1,147,808 paid as interest from the above LM’s loan and the amount of KRW 450,00,00 borrowed from the consideration mutual savings and finance companies in consideration of the decedent from September 29, 1993 to October 16, 1993, the amount of KRW 1,607,512 paid as interest from September 29, 1993 to October 16, 193, the amount of KRW 20,00,00 borrowed from the Hyundai Mutual Savings and Finance Company and KRW 313,423 paid as interest from September 29, 1993 to the above amount of KRW 313,423 paid as interest is the use place of the above debt. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony as to the witness PP appears consistent with this is not justified in light of the above evidence.

③ 소외 윤QQ에 대한 채무변제 여부

원고는, 피상속인이 위 채무의 사용처로 1991. 1. 4. 소외 윤QQ으로부터 차용한 금450,000,000원을 1992. 12. 19. 위 최MM 발행의 당좌수표로서 변제하였다고 주장하나, 갑 제13호증의 1, 2, 3의 각 기재와 증인 정PP의 증언만으로는 이를 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

(c) Whether to deduct the obligation to return the lease deposit;

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's obligation to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 48,00,000 against the non-party Y, KRW 20,000 against the non-party S, KRW 20,000 against the non-party Y, KRW 42,00,00 against the non-party Y, and KRW 42,00,00 against the non-party W, are not false, and thus, the obligation should be deducted pursuant to Article 4 of the Act. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's testimony as to the non-party 14, 15, 16-1, 2, 18-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 8-2, 5-2, 5, 7, and 8-8 of the evidence No. 5-3 and the witness P's testimony cannot be trust in light of the above evidence No. 5-2, 3, 7, and 8. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(d) Funeral expenses.

According to the statement 14 of evidence No. 22-14 and witness PP testimony, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff et al. paid 2,858,500 won for the plaintiff et al. to the graves of the deceased. Article 4(1)2 of the Act provides that funeral expenses of the deceased (2,00,000 won where funeral expenses are less than 2,00,000 won) shall be deducted from the value of inherited property when calculating the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and the detailed scope of funeral expenses shall not be limited to the specific scope of the funeral expenses. Thus, funeral expenses shall be deducted from the value of inherited property in that they reduces the ability to pay the inheritance tax due to inevitable expenses incurred in the commencement of inheritance even though they are not debts existing at the time of the commencement of inheritance. Since Article 4(1) of the Burial and Graveyard Act and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that one funeral expense and one funeral expense shall be deemed reasonable within the scope of 16,000 won per grave, and one funeral expense shall be deemed reasonable.

The plaintiff alleged that the funeral expenses of the deceased were paid KRW 3,00,000 in addition to the above amount. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the only statement of the evidence No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

E. Determination on the part of minor deduction

ex officio, Article 11(1)3, (4), and (5) of the Act provides that, if there is a minor among the inheritors at the time of commencement of inheritance, only two persons who have earlier the date and time of birth among them shall be entitled to the deduction of the amount calculated by multiplying the number of years until they reach the age of 20 by the number of years (a fraction of less than one year shall be deemed one year). According to the evidence No. 25-7, evidence No. 25-8, evidence No. 8-1, and No. 8-2, each of the above inheritors H (one day before November 21, 1976), II (one day before November 14, 1978), former JJ (one day before November 12, 1979), and Article 11(1)3, (4), (5) of the Act provides that the defendant has omitted the deduction of the minor in the instant taxation disposition, and thus, it may be recognized that the defendant has omitted the deduction of the minor from the tax disposition of this case x No. 300, 100,000,000

F. Sub-committee

As seen above, in calculating inheritance tax of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, the inheritance tax base is 67,116,712 won (interest on the rent 37,258,212 won + funeral expenses 2,858,500 + minor deduction 27,00,000 won + 2,637,917,132 won. Accordingly, the total determined tax amount is 1,469,737,854 won; the total tax amount is 1,053,841,444 won; the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax amount is 1,053,841,444 won; the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax amount is 123,981,340 won as stated in the column for recognition of the heir’s tax amount by heir; the remainder of the tax amount exceeds 27,000 won; the Plaintiff’s tax amount is 1,469,737,84540 won; and the Plaintiff’s tax amount is 2081,2005 won.30

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, the part seeking the revocation of the part against the non-party among the tax disposition of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the part against the plaintiff exceeding 123,981,340 won out of 129,784,140 won should be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case, excluding the above incineration part, shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.