Examination Inheritance 2014-003 (Law No. 15, 2014)

It is reasonable to view the transaction value of the apartment in this case as the market price of the apartment in this case, and the key money source is difficult to regard as the refund of deposit under the lease contract

In light of the fact that all apartment houses in the same area were traded at a price above the transaction example value, it is reasonable to see business example as the market price of the apartment house in this case, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is difficult to see the source of issue as the refund amount

Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Appraisal of Real Estate

2014Guhap13317 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

the United Nations A

O Head of tax office

October 24, 2014

November 14, 2014

1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 000 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000,000 against the Plaintiff on June 13, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 17, 2011, the Plaintiff, whose mother, succeeded to the deceased JeongB’s property (hereinafter “the deceased”). On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff reported inheritance tax with the value of inherited property KRW 000,000.

B. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant assessed the market price of OO apartment 000 O apartment 00,000 O apartment 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) among inherited property as KRW 000,000, the transaction price of O apartment 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family apartment”) and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, which the Deceased remitted to PCC on July 28, 2011.

C. After that, on September 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of reduction of KRW 000 of inheritance tax to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013 due to the increase in inheritance tax to be borne by the deceased before his birth (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 14, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 17, 2014. The said request was dismissed on April 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the part seeking cancellation of the corrected tax amount among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate

The plaintiff is seeking revocation of the imposition of an inheritance tax of KRW 000.

ex officio, the Defendant’s correction and notification of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2013, but on September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff’s correction and notification of the reduction of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing inheritance tax amounting to KRW 000 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not exist.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The sales contract date of an apartment subject to comparison is deemed to be May 2, 2006, where provisional registration has been made for an apartment subject to comparison, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the apartment subject to comparison was traded between six months before and after the base date of appraisal.

In addition, considering the fact that EE, the seller of the apartment subject to comparison, is the pilot of EE, the buyer of the apartment subject to comparison, the provisional registration has been completed five years prior to the completion of principal registration on the apartment subject to comparison, while the apartment subject to comparison is 7 floors, while the apartment subject to comparison is 15 floors, the transaction price of the apartment subject to comparison is determined to be objectively unfair, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the market price of the apartment subject to comparison

2) On December 3, 2009, the Deceased leased part of the OO-dong O-dong O-dong 00 (hereinafter “instant land”) to the PCC as the deposit amount of KRW 000, the lease period from January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2012. The deceased transferred KRW 000,000, which was transferred to the PCC on July 28, 201, to the PCC, cannot be deemed as the claim against PCC.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The transaction value from around May 201 to February 201 of the O apartment is as follows.

(unit: Mam2,00 square meters)

Date of Transaction

Dong

heading

Building Area

Land size

Standard Market Price

Amount of transaction;

on October 30, 2011

00

00

165.92

91.44

1,152

000

on October 30, 2011

00

00

1,176

000

on 15, 2010

00

00

1,216

000

on July 29, 2011

00

00

1,128

000

on October 2011 07

00

00

1,216

000

November 15, 2011

00

00

1,176

000

December 17, 2011

00

00

1,152

The apartment of this case

on 20 December 2012

00

00

1,216

000

2) On December 3, 2009, the Deceased drafted a contract with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

A lessor and a lessee (CC) shall enter into a lease agreement with respect to the following:

1. Indication of real estate;

Location

OOO-gu OO-dong 00

Land Category

Answer

Use

Trees, storage of trees, flowers, etc.

Area

1,715С

Parts to be leased

Only the area of the deceased's share in the total area;

Area

2,681 square meters

2. Terms of contract

Article 1 (Purpose) only for the lease of the above real estate, the lessor and the lessee will pay the lease deposit and the rent by agreement as follows:

Deposit

000 won

Contract deposit

000 won paid and received at the time of the contract.

Balance YN

000 won shall be paid in January 1, 2010.

Article 2 (Duration) The lessor shall deliver the above real estate to the lessee by January 1, 2010 in a condition that it can be used for the purpose of the lease, and the term of lease shall be from the date of delivery to December 1, 2012 (24 months).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 6, 7, 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) As long as a registration of ownership transfer has been made on the register of real estate, the party who asserts the procedure and cause for the transfer should be presumed to have been justified, and the party who asserts the unfair cause is liable to prove it (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46256, Feb. 28, 2003).

According to the statement No. 7-4 of the evidence No. 7-2, Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

B) Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "the value of an asset on which inheritance tax is imposed under this Act shall be the market value as of the date on which the inheritance commences." Article 60(2) of the same Act provides that "Where a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, the market value under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be the value generally recognized as a gender and shall include those recognized as the market value as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation price, public sale price, appraisal price, etc., and appraised price, and Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") shall be excluded from the market value of the pertinent asset for the same period of six months or less.

As above, Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act declares the principle of market value in the evaluation of inherited property under paragraph (1) of the same Article. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides for a broad standard which can be recognized as the market value on the premise that the market value is formed in a general and normal transaction, and that it should reflect an objective exchange value, and delegates the specific scope to the Presidential Decree. The provision of transaction value, etc. on the "relevant property" subject to taxation under each subparagraph of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is delegated, as the market value, is a representative example that can be seen as the market value of inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23200, Jan. 14, 2010)

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the comparative apartment was traded on July 29, 201, which was within six months from December 17, 201, the base date for appraisal; (b) the comparative apartment was identical or similar to the apartment of this case; and (c) the O apartment of the same area as the comparative apartment of this case was traded at a price exceeding 000 won from May 201 to February 2012; and (d) it is reasonable to view the transaction value of the comparative apartment of this case as the market price of the apartment of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction value of the comparative apartment of this case was the market price of the apartment of this case.

2) Determination on the second argument

The Plaintiff asserts that on December 3, 2009, the deceased leased the instant land from January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2012, 200 won as deposit money, lease period.

The fact that, on December 3, 2009, the deceased prepared a contract with the terms that the land in this case is leased to JungCC with a deposit of KRW 000,00 as well as the term of lease from January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2012 is as seen earlier.

However, in addition to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the oral argument, the following circumstances are revealed, namely, ① the decedent was paid KRW 000,000 on January 1, 2010, which was 1, 2009. ② the size of the land 527m2, Seocho-gu, Seoul was 2,681m2, and the size of the leased part was 1,715m2, and the lease period was 35m2, the area of the land 527m2, which was 1,715m2, which was 1,681m2, 200m2, and the lease period was 20m2,681m2, which was 1,681m2, which was 200m2, which was 1,000,000 from 1,000 to 24 months, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to find out the above facts that it was 10m20 or 100m2.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 000 is unlawful. Thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.