Seocho 2010west 1433 ( November 09, 2010)

may not be recognized as an obligation of an inheritee

Since it cannot be deemed that a debt borrowed by an ancestor at the time of acquisition of real estate, it is legitimate that no deduction is made from the value of inherited property.

2011Guhap4473 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

KoreaA

○ Head of tax office

oly 22, 2011

August 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 18, 2005, the Plaintiff’s father (hereinafter “the inheritee”) died on September 18, 2005, and the inheritors, such as KimB and the Plaintiff, inherited the inheritee’s property.

B. On March 17, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a tax base return on inheritance tax by making the amount of inherited property to the Defendant as KRW 1,848,50,750, and the amount of debt and its deductible amount as KRW 1,848,504,750, in which there is no tax base of inheritance tax.

C. The Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiff. On July 10, 2007, the Defendant added 90,860,580 won to the value of inherited property, 691,934,504 won, which was returned as a debt deducted from inherited property, to the value of inherited property, and calculated the inheritance tax base as 550,285,778 won, and determined and notified the Plaintiff and co-inheritors of 130,41,390 won of inheritance tax.

D. On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an application for rectification of inheritance tax with the Defendant. On August 31, 2007, the Defendant deducted the amount of KRW 40,207,520 from the amount of credit card used by the inheritee and the amount of KRW 50,000,000 from the amount of inherited property to the amount of inheritance tax, and corrected the amount of KRW 97,038,040 from the amount of inheritance tax to the amount of

E. On December 24, 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 493,910,000 ( = 200,000,000 + + 293,910,000,000 + 293,910,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for correction”) from the Plaintiff’s motherCC, which was in a de facto marital relationship with the inheritee, at the time of the inheritee’s acquisition of ○○○○○○○○○ Dong 350-1,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real property”). However, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff on February 16, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for correction”) of the inheritance tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for correction”) by asserting that it should be deducted from the inherited property value.

F. On April 23, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on November 9, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 13, 2003, 200, 293,910,000 won, which was remitted by the followingCC to the inheritee’s deposit account to repay construction expenses, landscaping construction expenses, and bank loans, and 293,910,000 won, which was paid on behalf of the inheritee, were leased to the inheritee. The inheritee calculated such monetary loan at KRW 580,000,000, assessed the instant real estate as KRW 600,000, and transferred it to the nextCC. Since the claim for ownership transfer registration was made on February 11, 2005, the key amount should be deducted from the inherited property value as a debt to the inheritor.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 29, 2002, the teaCC moved-in report to each of the instant real estate on May 1, 2002, and the decedent completed registration of initial ownership on May 28, 2002.

2) From January 24, 2002 to April 9, 2003, the teaCC paid the sum of KRW 293,910,000,000, including the interior cost of the instant real estate, to construction business operators, such as the Lee Construction Office, a stock company, in cash or by means of transfer without passbook transfer.

3) On June 13, 2003, the nextCC remitted KRW 200,000,000 to the deposit account of a single bank account of the inheritee.

4) On February 4, 2005, the decedent was hospitalized into ○ University Hospital on September 18, 2005, and died of 'brupt Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amala’. On the same day, KRW 30,000,000 was transferred to the next one bank account of CC, as the next one bank account.

5) On February 11, 2005, the pre-contract entered into by the decedent as the pre-contracted, and the pre-contract entered into by the pre-contracted on February 11, 2005 (hereinafter “the pre-contract”). The pre-contract entered that the pre-contract would sell the instant real estate to the nextCC at KRW 600,000,00,000, and the nextCC would pay the pre-contract deposit amount to the decedent as KRW 580,00,000, and the pre-contract would be deducted from the purchase price. Based on this, the provisional registration of the pre-contract was completed on February 11, 2005 (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”).

6) Meanwhile, on April 21, 2008, Korea EE filed a lawsuit against ○○ Dong District Court seeking cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against coinheritors, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of Korea EE on the ground that only the evidence submitted by Korea EE on December 9, 2008 was sufficient to recognize that the provisional registration of this case was a registration invalidation of cause (20087). Korea EE appealed appealed against the above judgment on January 2, 2009, but was dismissed on August 19, 2009 (○○ Dong District Court 2009Na572), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 10, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 2 to 5, before pleadings

The purpose of body

D. Determination

As to whether the issue amount falls under the obligation of Article 14(1)3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916 of Jan. 1, 2010), and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the issue amount is an obligation against the nextCC of the decedent, taking full account of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments in the facts acknowledged above, and it is difficult to recognize that the issue amount is the obligation against the borrower. The instant disposition that did not deduct from the inherited property value is legitimate

1) The Plaintiff asserted that the decedent borrowed 200,000,000 won from the teaCC for the purchase and sale of the instant real estate from the decedent. However, it is difficult to deem that the borrower used the said money as real estate acquisition fund in light of the fact that the decedent transferred 200,000,000 won to the decedent after one year has passed since the decedent acquired the instant real estate, and even if the decedent used the said money for construction cost, there was no data to regard that the decedent used the said money for the loan construction cost, etc., and even if it used the said money for the use of the said money as the construction cost, it was deemed that the decedent and the teaCC had a de facto marital relationship with the decedent, such as transfer from November 22, 2006, since the decedent died, and it is difficult to view the said amount as a loan of 20,000 won.

2) The instant pre-sale contract was prepared only once a week after the decedent was hospitalized in the hospital. However, it is difficult to accept that there was an ordinary claim, a real estate obligation relationship, or a real estate security or a transfer between the decedent and the nextCC, for the following reasons: (a) considering the fact that the total purchase price was 600,000,000 won to be paid by the nextCC to the decedent on the date of the pre-sale contract; and (b) the amount of debt to the decedent claimed by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant request for correction and the amount of debt claimed by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant request for correction and the down payment under the said pre-sale contract are inconsistent with each other.

3) The contracting party to the instant real estate Rotterdam is the nextCC, and the nextCC paid the expenses, etc., but there is no objective data to deem that the nextCC lent the said expenses to the decedent, such as the details deposited in the decedent’s account or the details of borrowing.

4) The reason for the judgment of the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the teaCC is that it is difficult to recognize that the provisional registration of this case is null and void solely based on the evidence submitted by HanE with respect to the claim that the teaCC completed the provisional registration of this case using the decedent’s seal impression without any actual transaction relation with the decedent. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude the said judgment as evidence that there exists a credit and a debt relationship between the decedent and the teaCC.

5) Even according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 12, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the issue amount is the Defendant’s obligation to the nextCC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.