Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Partnership-5061 ( October 14, 2014)

Cho Jae-2012-west-3606 ( December 13, 2012)

The value of the appraised value by the appraisal value under Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, etc., which falls short of the smaller amount between the value assessed by the appraisal value and the value equivalent to 90

Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides, “Where the relevant appraised value falls short of the smaller of the value assessed under Article 61, etc. of the Act and the value equivalent to 90/100 of the market value under paragraph (5).” In the case of the converted value of rent under Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the converted value of rent which is not 90% shall be compared with the original appraised

2014Nu47213 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

1. The AA2. The AB3. the Republic of Korea Research and Development;

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap50661 Decided March 14, 2014

April 23, 2015

May 21, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On May 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the imposition of each inheritance tax by the plaintiff and the first instance court against the plaintiff and the second instance court against the plaintiff and the second instance court against the plaintiff and the second instance court (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the first instance court as above).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to that of this court's judgment except for the addition of some contents and the dismissal of some parts as follows. Thus, the reasoning of this court's judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Parts to be added

○ The following shall be added to the fourth fifth sentence of the first instance judgment:

G. On the other hand, as of April 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision of correction to ex officio reduce OO00 won due to an increase in the re-appraisals of the Plaintiffs’ re-payment for the unfaithful paid additional tax.

○○ Judgment No. 6-7 of the first instance court's 1 to 4's 10's 10's 'No. 10' is added.

The following is added to the part of the first instance court No. 16, 13-14, "the conversion value of the national rent is the basis."

(1) The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for re-appraisal on the premise that the original appraisal value and the converted rent should be compared to 90% in the application of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “where the relevant appraised value falls short of the smaller of the smaller of the value assessed under Articles 61, 62, 64, and 65 of the Act and the market value under Article 65 of the Act, which are equivalent to 90% of the market value under Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.” Thus, in the case of the converted rent under Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the difference between the converted rent value and the converted rent value

○ The following is added to the fact that the original appraisal value cannot be seen as the original appraisal value of the second instance judgment of the first instance court.

According to the appraisal results with respect to the central appraisal corporation of the party, the plaintiffs argued that the value of the building of this case was calculated as an OOO and at least DD and EE was excessively assessed. However, FF corporations applied 50 years to the parts of reinforced concrete structure, and 35 years to the parts of the 4th floor of the light-weight steel structure, while the 35 years to the 35th floor, and the 4th floor of the light-weight steel structure with the 20 years to the 15 years to both the 15 years to the 3rd floor and the 4th floor of the light-weight steel structure (5 years to the 50 years to the 35 years to the 35 years to the 35 years to the 4th 20th 5 years to the 5th 5 years to the remaining 5 years old, and there is lack of evidence to view that the observation reduction was applied solely on the grounds that the remaining 5 years old DoD and EE was reduced, the remaining 5 years evaluation methods of the ED to the remaining 5 years.

Parts used for cutting.

○ The third-party 7th judgment of the first instance court is 'payment of OOO' as ‘payment of OOO'.

○ In the first instance court Decision 4th 14th 'the value reduced' is considered as ‘the calculated value'.

The portion of the 15th judgment of the first instance court which did not deduct the management expenses from the rent of the 3rd judgment is that the 15th judgment did not deduct the management expenses from the rent of the UG and the HaH.

The part of 16th 7th 'the 16th 7th 'the 16th 'the 7th 'the 1/2 'the 10th 'the 1st 'the '

The 'OOO' part of the 17th judgment of the first instance court is 'OO' as 'OO'.

The part of the "land of this case" in the 19th judgment of the court of first instance shall be "land of this case".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.