The early appellate court 2012 middle 0808

In relation to the contribution of property, it is difficult to regard it as a legal or administrative justifiable cause for delay.

It appears that it is difficult to use the creditors for the purpose of contribution due to the seizure by creditors and the decision on commencing auction, etc., and it is difficult to regard the contribution of assets as a legitimate cause of delay.

Article 16 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act

The revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax by the District Court 2014Guhap7294

United StatesA and 5

Head of the High Tax Office

June 2, 2015

July 7, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 1,823,182,00 on February 4, 2014 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 23,748,947,390 against the Plaintiffs on February 4, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs were heirs of the UO (hereinafter “OO”) that died on March 5, 2010. The Plaintiffs reported and paid inheritance tax amounting to KRW 67,710,169,00, the total amount of inherited property value of KRW 20,405,256,00, the inheritance tax base of KRW 205,256,00, the amount of tax calculated, KRW 24,742,628,00, and the total amount of tax calculated, KRW 12,238,260,50.

B. From February 24, 201 to July 24, 2011, the director of the Small and Medium Regional Tax Office included KRW 4,805,237,00 in the value of the instant property contributed to the public interest corporation on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of the pertinent property was not made within 6 months from the inheritance filing date for the property contributed to the public interest corporation among the property contributed to the public interest corporation not included in the taxable value of the inheritance, and included KRW 3,419,70,00 in the taxable value of the inheritance tax. ② As of the commencement date of inheritance, the sum of the value of the instant property contributed to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of HH Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “EH”), 3,419,70,000 in the aggregate of the value of the inherited property owed by the predecessor (1/3) to the Defendant at the time of commencement of inheritance, and the remaining value of the inherited property was not denied from 00,000 spouse's share transfer registration date.

C. Accordingly, on November 15, 201, the Defendant issued an additional correction and notification of KRW 8,385,783,320 of inheritance tax on the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

D. From April 30, 2012 to June 29, 2012, the Board of Audit and Inspection found that the appraisal of the shares of OO Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OO Construction”) among the inherited property of the decedent was not an assessment of the stocks of the corporation excessively owned real estate, and requested the Superintendent of the Central Tax Office to correct it. On December 10, 2012, the defendant notified the Commissioner of the Central Tax Office of taxation data from the Commissioner of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office of the notification of taxation data by the Commissioner of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office of the notification of the data for taxation was revaluated the shares of OO Construction into the stocks of the corporation excessively owned real estate, and notified the Plaintiffs of the additional correction and notification of KRW 1,207,926,314 of the inheritance tax (hereinafter

E. Meanwhile, on December 19, 2011, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition No. 1 and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 29, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a loan to EH by a decedent.

708,662,591 won cannot be recovered due to the impossibility of repayment by EH at the time of commencement of the inheritance.

It accepted the plaintiffs' assertion that it should be excluded from inherited property, and made a partial decision of acceptance to the effect that the amount of the loan should be deducted from the value of inherited property after deducting the tax base and tax amount from the value of inherited property.

F. The defendant extended loans to EH by the inheritee upon the decision of the above Tax Tribunal

Although the tax base was corrected by 708,662,591 won as irrecoverable bonds, the error in the portions for calculation of the calculated tax amount at the time of the first disposition of the instant case and the portion for the portion of the penalty tax for failure to file a return was found to have been insufficiently determined, and on February 3, 2014, the additional correction and notification was made to the Plaintiffs of KRW 93,795,210 as additional tax for negligent tax returns imposed under consideration for the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition 3”).

G. In addition, following the resignation of the representative director of the O Construction on September 30, 201 by the Plaintiff U.S.A.

On February 4, 2014, the Defendant issued an additional rectification and notice of KRW 1,823,182,000 to the Plaintiff UA on February 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 4”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 15, 16, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant is different in the case of KRW 12,238,260,550 of inheritance tax originally reported and paid by the plaintiffs.

Since any disposition cannot be deemed to exist, it is alleged that it is unlawful as it cannot be the subject of an appeal litigation. However, the inheritance tax is the method of imposition, which is the method of imposition, and its tax base and tax amount are finalized by the decision of the tax authority. Therefore, the tax amount initially reported and paid by the plaintiffs is also determined by the defendant's decision, and the duty of cooperation such as the plaintiffs' report and payment is merely the nature of supplementing the duty of investigation by the tax authority. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the disposition of this case 4 was unlawful since the Plaintiffs did not follow the procedure of the preceding trial. As such, Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "it shall not be allowed to file an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under Article 55 without undergoing a request for examination or a request for adjudication and a decision thereon pursuant to this Act, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act." According to the above evidence, the Plaintiffs agreed to donate the land of this case to a school juristic person for the purpose of contributing the land of this case to MF, but the transfer registration is only impossible as the land of this case falls under absolute farmland, and the transfer registration is also impossible as the main debtor E is in a de facto impossible condition, and thus, the Plaintiffs succeeds to the obligation of this case 40, which is a joint and several debt collection claim of the inheritee, and the remaining part of the inheritance tax court's disposal of the inheritance tax of this case can not be seen as being unlawful before the 110th day of the inheritance tax appeal procedure.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The instant land falls under absolute farmland within the Agricultural Promotion Zone and is immediately subject to the provisions of the Farmland Act.

After the registration of ownership transfer is delayed due to the impossibility of registration of ownership transfer, and the school juristic person's MMA prepared a plan for utilization of the land of this case with no farmland cultivation department, etc. to utilize the land of this case, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology rejected the plan without considering the development plan of MMA. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer concerning the land of this case constitutes "cases where the transfer of ownership is delayed due to statutory or administrative reasons" under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

2) EH shall have commenced its inheritance from 2006 to 2010 due to consecutive deficits

Since it is actually impossible to repay the principal obligation due to the actual suspension or closure of business, and there is no possibility to exercise the right to indemnity against EH by the inheritee, joint and several surety obligations of the inheritee must be deducted from the value of inherited property as an inheritance obligation. Moreover, the inheritee created a collateral security right on the instant land to secure an OO construction’s obligation. The secured obligation also ought to be deemed an obligation deducted from the value of inherited property pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Even if the Plaintiffs voluntarily filed a report on the value of the instant land in the return and payment of inheritance tax, it is merely a cooperation in tax administration, and thus, it is unlawful to calculate the value of inherited property assessed according to the details reported by the Plaintiffs.

3) The Plaintiffs do not have cash to pay acquisition tax, and thus are on the inheritance land of the instant spouse.

A self-registration of inheritance has not been made on July 9, 201, the date of inheritance decision, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Plaintiff HaA on July 9, 201, and there was no fact that the inheritance tax was registered to other inheritors than the spouse after the spouse was granted inheritance deduction and the inheritance tax was paid. Therefore, the spouse deduction for the land

4) The Plaintiffs’ limit on property received or to be received by each party pursuant to Article 3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The plaintiff UB, UDD, UCC, and UJ have a duty to pay inheritance tax only within the limit of 780,026,518 won for the value of inherited property. However, the defendant has a duty to pay inheritance tax jointly and severally to all the plaintiffs, which is in violation of the above provisions of inheritance tax and gift tax law.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on property contributed to a public interest corporation

A) the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010);

Article 16 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") stipulates that a person who conducts a business for religious, charitable, academic or other public interest (hereinafter referred to as a "public interest corporation") among inherited

Article 16(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that the value of the property contributed to a public corporation by the deadline for filing a return under Article 67 (referring to six months from the last day of the month in which such cause ceases to exist, in cases where a public corporation is incorporated by contributing the inherited property) shall not be included in the taxable value of the inherited property. In addition, Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sep. 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that the property not included in the taxable value of inheritance under Article 16(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be contributed by the deadline for filing a return on the tax base of inheritance tax under Article 67 of the same Act (hereinafter “the deadline for filing”).

In addition, the "inevitable reason" under Article 16 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the property of the public corporation.

It means the reason why the contribution is delayed due to the legal or administrative disability that is not attributable to him.

B) However, the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and evidence Nos. 5, 12, 13, and pleadings

(5) In light of the following circumstances, the first instance court (Seoul Western District Court 2013No. 197) and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No. 559) declared guilty of all of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s MOO’s donation contract to the effect that it did not have donated the instant land without compensation to the MFO on March 2, 2010, which was its birth, and that it was submitted upon the filing of an inheritance tax report on September 30, 2010. The Plaintiff’s first instance court (Seoul Western District Court 2013No. 197) and the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2014No. 559) did not file an application for ownership transfer registration in the name of the MFO, ③ the Plaintiff’s application for ownership transfer of the instant land was not made until the time limit for filing the inheritance tax base, but the Plaintiffs were not entitled to use the instant farmland as farmland for reasons prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

2) Determination as to the guaranteed obligation

A) The obligation of the inheritee to be deducted from the value of the inherited property is the species of the inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance.

Since it refers to an obligation that is recognized as certain to be performed with nationality, in cases where an ancestor bears a joint and several liability for a third party or is liable as a surety at the time of commencement of inheritance, the principal debtor is in an insolvent situation where the obligor is unable to perform his/her obligation. Therefore, if it is deemed that there is no possibility that the principal debtor can perform his/her obligation even if he/she exercises his/her right to indemnity against the principal debtor, the amount of his/her obligation can be deducted from the value of his/her inherited property. In such cases, whether the principal debtor is not in an unsound state at the time of commencement of inheritance is generally liable for the existence of his/her obligation, such as bankruptcy, composition, corporate reorganization, or compulsory execution, or business closure, missing, or execution of punishment, etc., and there is no possibility that the principal debtor can receive a loan differently as the principal debtor continues for a considerable period of time due to the commencement of the inheritance, and it is reasonable to view that there is a special reason that exceptionally affects the taxable value of inherited property.

B) However, by integrating Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) The ownership of EH and the DD industry at the time the inheritance commences, in any of the following circumstances:

Amounting to KRW 10.2 billion for the Nonghyup, the primary debtor, EH’s real estate in the aggregate of KRW 31.4 billion

In full view of the fact that the aforementioned secured real estate is offered as a security for a debt, and that there is no evidence to prove that the decedent’s performance of the joint and several liability in this case is clear or that the decedent’s exercise of the right to reimbursement against EH, and that there is no possibility of receiving reimbursement even if the decedent’s exercise of the right to reimbursement against Oconstruction, the decedent’s establishment of a collateral security right on the real estate owned by the decedent, but there is no evidence to prove that OO construction as the principal obligor is insolvent or that there is no possibility of receiving reimbursement even if an OO construction as the principal obligor exercises the right to reimbursement against OO construction. Rather, it cannot be deemed that the joint and several liability in this case and the secured debt on the real property constitute the obligation to deduct the value of the inherited property from the value of the inherited property pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

3) Determination on the spouse’s deduction

A) Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Jan. 1, 2

The amount of inherited property shall be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, and Article 14 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the same shall apply to cases where the inherited property of the spouse is divided (where registration, registration, transfer of title, etc. is required, limited to those registered, registered, or transferred; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) by six months from the day following the date of the division of inherited property (hereafter the same shall apply in this Article): Provided, That Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where it is impossible for the spouse to divide his/her inherited property by the due date of the division of inherited property due to extenuating circumstances prescribed by Presidential Decree notwithstanding paragraph (2) of the same Article, if the inheritor files a report on the division of inherited property by six months from the day following the due date of the division of inherited property (where the tax base and amount of tax under Article 76 are determined after six months after the due date of the division of inherited property, it shall be deemed that the spouse is divided within the due date of the division of inherited property.

B) However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without any inevitable reason under Article 19(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the spouse’s inherited property by the due date of the division of the inherited property by the spouse’s spouse is impossible, on July 19, 201, when six months have elapsed since the date following the due date of filing the inheritance tax base, and the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership is completed under his/her name with respect to the instant spouse’s inherited property, and there is insufficient cash to pay acquisition tax.

4) Determination on the joint payment obligation of inheritance tax

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and 16 and the whole pleadings, the defendant is the plaintiffs.

In each disposition of this case against B, the total tax amount payable to each tax notice and the tax base, tax rate, and deductible tax amount, which are the basis for the calculation thereof, were stated as one of six joint taxpayers. The notice of inheritance tax and the amount of tax payable to each heir or testamentary donee entered the individual co-inheritors’s tax amount to be paid according to inheritance shares. Each of the individual co-inheritors’s tax amount to be paid may be acknowledged as not exceeding the property received or to be received by each of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Defendant’s writing the total amount of tax to be paid by the Plaintiffs to each disposition of this case is indicated as the amount of assessment and collection, and the amount of tax to be paid by each of the Plaintiffs to each of the above inheritors or testamentary donees, as well as the amount of tax to be paid, was individually imposed and collected within the limit of property received or to be received by each of the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the inheritance tax imposition of KRW 1,823,182,00 among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.