Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-5870 ( October 22, 2015)

It does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent claim for rectification

Since the claim for correction of this case does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction, it is illegal as the deadline for request expires.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu64796 Revocation of Disposition rejecting to correct inheritance tax

KimA

YThe director of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap5870

May 10, 2016

May 24, 2016

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. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 27, 2014 regarding the plaintiff on March 27, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “No. 6 No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance” is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following 2.3. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The plaintiff asserted to the effect that the disposition of this case against the decision of the commissioner of the regional tax office that the obligation to return the deposit of this case constitutes the obligation of the inheritee to be deducted when calculating the taxable amount of inheritance taxes is unlawful. However, the plaintiff argues that the real estate of this case is not included in the inherited property, and that even if the real estate of this case is included in the inherited property, it is included in the inherited property, the principal claim is rejected, and the conjunctive claim is rejected, and the conjunctive claim is rejected, the plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication and the revocation lawsuit against the defendant's correction of the amount of reduction, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office that accepted the conjunctive claim. In the above case of the appeal and the revocation lawsuit, the plaintiff rejected the claim that the obligation to return the deposit of this case constitutes the obligation of the inheritee to return the deposit of this case in this case, instead of receiving the judgment citing the claim that the real estate of this case should be excluded from the inherited property, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.