The calculation of the value of inherited property by applying a special case for the evaluation of property whose mortgage, etc. is created.

Since the value of inherited property is evaluated as the market value, if it is proved that the total amount of secured claims, etc. under Article 66 of the Act and Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree is the amount higher than the market value of the relevant property, the market value is the value of inherited property and the burden of proving that the secured claims, etc. of the relevant property have been set higher than the market

Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Special Cases for Appraisal of Property on which Mortgage, etc. is Secured)

2014Guhap52138 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

BB

○ Head of tax office

July 25, 2014

October 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the inheritance tax ○○○○ upon the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the spouse of the deceased AA (the decedent’s death on October 6, 201, hereinafter “the decedent”), succeeded to 1/2 shares (the total of 121.5 square meters, hereinafter “the instant real estate”) among 506-8 square meters of land and its ground buildings in ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, 506-6 and its ground buildings, from the decedent, and filed a tax base return of inheritance tax amounting to 630,000,000, which is the aggregate of the standard market value of the inherited property of the instant real estate.

B. After investigating the inheritance tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) deemed the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security assessed under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (b) KRW 1,098,000,000, which is the aggregate amount of the lease deposit, as the market price of the instant real estate; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 147,963,750, Apr. 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on November 11, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap's No. 1, 2, 3, Eul's No. 1 and 2 (including all virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not apply where it is proved that the aggregate amount of secured debt, etc. assessed under the above provision is larger than the market price of the pertinent real estate. As such, since secured debt, etc. established on the instant real estate was set higher than the market price of the instant real estate, the amount of inheritance tax shall be calculated on the basis of the officially announced value under Article 60 of the Inheritance

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of a property on which a mortgage or a right to lease on a deposit basis has been registered (including the property leased in return for a lease deposit) shall be the value of the property assessed as prescribed by Presidential Decree on the basis of the amount of the claim secured by the relevant property, as well as the value assessed under Article 60. Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the basis of delegation provides that "the value of the property on a deposit basis, as prescribed by Presidential Decree" means the amount of the claim secured by the relevant property as of the base date of appraisal, and Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on a deposit basis shall be the amount of the registered deposit (where the property on a deposit basis is leased in return for a lease deposit)" and that the amount of the property on a deposit basis shall be the maximum amount of claims secured by a credit guarantee agency in addition to the physical security established on the relevant property, if there is a guarantee by the relevant credit guarantee agency.

B. The purport of the above provision is to calculate the value of the secured claim as of the date of inheritance or donation (hereinafter referred to as the “date of appraisal”), and the value of the secured claim is to supplement the provisions of Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the principle of market price, in light of the actual value of the secured claim, if the amount of the secured claim or the amount of the secured claim is greater than the value of the secured claim calculated by other methods. However, in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of the property on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied shall be calculated based on the market price as of the date of inheritance or donation (hereinafter referred to as the “date of appraisal”), and the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be calculated at a price which is generally recognized as being established if transactions are conducted at will between many and unspecified persons and the amount of the secured claim shall be determined at the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree (see paragraph (2)).

C. Comprehensively taking into account the market price commission with respect to the PPP appraisal corporation of this Court (hereinafter “court appraiser”) in the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the total amount of secured claims and lease deposits of this case established on the real estate of this case is KRW 1,098,000, and the market price of this case is KRW 900,824,000 as of October 21, 201 (excluding KRW 506-8,000,00,000) as of October 16, 201; the court appraiser assessed KRW 1,142,590,000 as of October 16, 201; the court appraiser assessed the total amount of secured claims of this case as of KRW 1,142,590,00,000 as of KRW 1,142,50,000; the market price of each of the real estate of this case was set at KRW 1,00,700,700,700.

D. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the court’s appraisal should not be considered as being illegal by adopting the transaction cases, etc. mistakenly.

In calculating a reasonable amount of compensation of a land to be expropriated, it does not necessarily need to be examined and taken into account in a normal transaction case of a similar neighboring land. However, in cases where there are normal transaction cases of a neighboring similar land and its transaction price is proved to have an impact on the adequate amount of compensation, it may be taken into account. In this context, in order to be referred to as a normal transaction price of a neighboring similar land, the price formed in an ordinary transaction with respect to the land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated, such as land category, grade, land register, form, use situation, specific use area, statutory restrictions, etc. in the vicinity of the land to be expropriated, which is not formed in an speculative transaction but not including development gains, and the fact that there are transaction cases that can be seen as falling under such similar land and that it affects the calculation of compensation by taking into account them are burden of proof for the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Du5621, Aug. 30, 2004)

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s real estate and the evidence adopted earlier, and the court appraiser’s fact-finding results, i.e., the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s real estate 506-6 1,532 m2 and its ground factory facilities among the real estate of this case, excluding 506-8 m21.5 m2, and 206 m26 m26 m20-6 m26 m26 m2, and 36 m26 m2, the court appraisal of the land of this case, which is planned to use the land of this case, can not be viewed as having been compared to the sale price of the land of this case, which is 506-12 m20 m2, 506-972 m20 m20 m2, 300 m20 m26 m2, 305 m20 m2.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.