Jeju District Court 2008Guhap55 (No. 17, 2009)

Cho High Court Decision 2007Da1136 ( November 27, 2007)

Whether a deposit among inherited property is a title trust deposit

The deposit is owned by a third party, and the deceased can only be recognized as having entered his name in the name column of the third party in the name column of the application for the deposit in the capacity of the third party as the agent of the opening company of the above deposit account. As such, the instant disposition based on the premise that the deposit is owned by the deceased was erroneous in the scope of the inherited property.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○ ○

Jeju Tax Office

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on which the Defendant seeks revocation of the disposition imposing inheritance tax on the AA on December 20, 2006 shall be dismissed.

B. The part exceeding KRW 2,608,893,310 among the disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 4,209,824,663 against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. 1/2 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The part exceeding KRW 2,608,893,310 of the inheritance tax disposition of KRW 4,209,824,663 against the plaintiff and EA, each of which exceeds KRW 2,608,893,310 (the plaintiff sought revocation from the first instance court regarding the tax disposition of EA by other co-inheritors as the tax disposition of EA, and then the court changed the content of the tax disposition against EA by the other co-inheritors as the co-inheritors for the first instance trial.)

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the taxation disposition;

A. Deposit of this case

(1) This BB put to the Plaintiff at ○○○-si ○○○○○-si 26, a golf course development project was being implemented on the actual master of ○○ Tourism Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ○○○ Tourism).

(2)그런데 미국 회사인 ☐☐ INC.(이하'소외 회사'라 한다)는 이BB의 위 골프장 개발 사업 등에 투자하기로 하여, ○○은행 △△지점에 개설된 소외 회사 명의 계좌로 2002.10.24.에 300만 달러, 2003.10.15.에 500만 달러, 합계 800만 달러를 송금하고, 2002.11.15.이BB에게 위 예금의 관리, 보관, 투자 등의 권한을 위임한다는 내용의 특별위임장을 작성해 주었다.

(3) ThisB withdrawn on October 17, 2003, 2000 US$5 million, which was deposited in the account of the above ○○ Bank Branch in the name of the non-party company, and transferred it to the account of the new bank ○○ Branch in the name of the non-party company, and withdrawn US$3 million on December 22, 2003.

(4)이후 이BB은 2004.6.21.경 이BB 명의의 위 신한은행 ○○지점 계좌에 입금해 두었던 500만 달러를 이BB 명의의 신한은행 ♤♤지점 계좌로 송금한 다음, 같은 날 그 계좌에서 위 돈을 인출하였다.

"(5)그 후 이BB은 2005.2.17.▷▷드 건설 주식회사에 ◇◇관광 주식 전부, 골프장 부지, 이BB의 ◇◇관광에 대한 채권 등을 매각하고 그 무렵 이BB 명의의 우리은행 계좌로 위 매각대금 230억 원을 송금 받은 다음, 2005.3.25.매각대금 230억 원 중 100억 원을 '☐☐ INC.◁◁E' 명의로 신한은행 ○○지점 계좌에 예금하였다(이하'이 사건 예금'이라 한다).",나. 이 사건 과세처분

(1)B is a non-resident under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act because it has no address in Korea or has no domicile for more than one year, and it has been jointly inherited by the plaintiff and the AB's domestic property on January 21, 2006, which he had died.

(2) On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of inheritance on behalf of the inheritor to the Defendant, and filed a return on the tax base of inheritance tax with the amount of KRW 5,451,422,167, the tax base of KRW 5,251,42,167, and the amount of tax calculated with the amount of KRW 1,949,139,975, as stated in the separate sheet.

(3)그런데 피고는 2006.12.20.원고 및 이AA에 대한 상속세를 결정함에 있어, 위 예금 100억 원은 이BB이 소외 회사 앞으로 명의신탁한 재산으로 판단하고, 다만 앞서 본 바와 같이 소외 회사가 송금해 준 800만 달러 중 이BB이 국외(신한은행 ♤♤지점 계좌)로 이체시키지 아니한 300만 달러만을 이BB의 소외 회사에 대한 채무로 인정하여, 위 예금 100억 원에서 300만 달러에서 해당하는 29억 6,040만 원을 공제한 나머지 70억 3,960만 원을 상속재산에 산입시키는 등 원고의 신고내용 중 일부를 부인하여, 위 [상속세액 내역서]의 '부과 처분'란과 같이 상속세 과세가액을 17,969,876,867원으로, 과세표준을 17,769,876,867원 하여 계산된 8,419,649,326원을 고지세액으로 결정하고, 원고와 이AA의 상속비율 50%에 따라 원고와 이AA에게 각 4,209,824,663원씩의 상속세를 부과・고지하였다(이하'이 사건 과세처분'이라 한다).

(4) In making the above taxation, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of tax payment stating the total tax amount to be paid and the grounds for its calculation along with the list of co-inheritors’s inheritance tax amount to be paid by each inheritor, including the inheritance tax amount to be paid by each inheritor and the inheritance tax amount to be paid by each inheritor according to their respective shares of inheritance and their ratio. The above notice of tax payment and the list of co-inheritors’s inheritance tax amount to be paid by each inheritor was served on

(5) The plaintiff appealed to the above taxation and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 19, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on November 27, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-76, Eul evidence 1-7-1-7, Eul evidence 2,3,6,7,8, Eul evidence 10-1,2, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant’s defense and determination prior to the merits (whether the aforementioned taxation disposition was legitimate as to the part of thisA)

A. The defendant's assertion

ThisA has already paid the tax imposed on it among the above taxation dispositions, and does not dispute the taxation disposition. As such, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition against thisA is unlawful.

B. Determination

On the other hand, in the case of an heir who is liable for joint payment of inheritance tax by other co-inheritors, the heir shall be deemed to have a legal and direct interest in seeking the revocation of the tax assessment itself against other co-inheritors, so the Plaintiff’s eligibility to seek such revocation shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du9530, Nov. 27, 2001).

However, according to the evidence Nos. 11,12, and 13 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant collected all inheritance tax of 8,419,649,326 won under the above taxation from the deposit account of this BB attached on or around January 2, 2007. Meanwhile, as the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not talk with each other because it has long been good for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit with Egys and property disputes. The lawsuit of this case is not filed by Egys with Egys but filed by Egys and Egys are not filed by Egys, and this lawsuit is filed by Egys and Egys are not filed until now even after Egys were collected. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the taxation disposition of this case against Egys is unlawful because there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. Whether the taxation by the Plaintiff was legitimate among the above taxation dispositions

A. Whether the above deposit worth KRW 10 billion is the property of thisB

(i)The Parties' arguments;

The Plaintiff asserts that the deposit of this case is unlawful, since the non-party company's assets are not the non-party company's assets and the non-party company's assets are not the non-party company's assets, the part that the defendant calculated the above deposit amount of KRW 7 billion 39.6 billion by including it in the inherited property, and the defendant asserts that the above deposit is legitimate

(ii)judgments

"살피건대, 위 예금 명의인이 '☐☐ INC. ◁◁E'로 되어 있는 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으나(갑 1호증의 76), 그 사실만으로는 위 예금이 이BB의 재산이라고 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.",오히려 앞서 보거나 갑 1호증의 20, 갑 1호증의 57 내지 66, 갑 1호증의 111, 갑 3호증의 1의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ①위 예금의 모계좌로 보이는 신한은행 ○○지점 계좌의 예금주가 소외 회사로 되어 있는 점(갑 1호증의 20), ②이BB은 평소 개인 명의의 계좌를 개설할 경우 예금신청서의 성명란에 '이BB', 주민등록번호 및 생년월일란에 이BB의 여권번호를 기재하여 왔는데, 이 사건 예금인 경우 예금신청서의 성명란에 소외 회사와 이BB의 이름이 상하로 기재되어 있고, 주민등록번호 및 생년월일란에 소외 회사의 등록번호가 기재되어 있어, 위 예금은 이BB이 소외 회사 명의로 예금한 것으로 보이는 점, ③한편 소외 회사는 2002.10.24.가 2003.10.15.두 차례에 걸쳐 합계 800만 달러를 송금하면서 위 예금의 관리, 보관, 투자 등의 권한을 이BB에게 위임하였고, 반면 이BB은 둘째 아들 이AA을 통해 골프장 건설사업의 진행사항 및 투자금에 대한 관리상황을 소외 회사에 지속적으로 보고하여 온 점, ④소외 회사도 2003년부터 2006년까지 미국 국세청에 재산상태 보고서를 제출하고 소득세를 신고하면서 ○○도 골프장 건설사업에 대하여 800만 달러를 투자한 사실에 대하여 보고한 점, ⑤원고는 이BB의 사망 후 위 예금을 이BB의 재산으로 생각하여 신한은행을 상대로 서울지방법원 2007가합10844호로 위 예금 중원고의 상속분에 해당하는 50억 원의 지급을 구하는 예탁금반환청구소송을 제기하였으나, 위 법원은 2007.12.27.위 예금의 명의인 및 실질적 출연자는 소외 회사이지 이BB이 아니라는 이유로 원고의 청구를 기각하였고, 이에 원고가 서울고등법원 2008나13335호로 항소하였으나 2008.11.7.항소기각 판결을 선고 받아, 그 판결이 그 무렵 확정된 점 등을 종합해 보면, 이 사건 예금은 이BB이 소외 회사 소유의 800만 달러를 송금 받아 관리해 오다가 골프장 사업을 매각하면서 그 매각대금 중 위 800만 달러에 상응하는 100억 원을 소외 회사 명의의 계좌로 입금한 것이라 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the above deposit KRW 10 billion is not a property of thisB, so the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(b) Whether USD 5 million may be included in the taxable value of inherited property;

(1) Defendant’s assertion

피고는, 설령 위 100억 원의 예금이 이BB의 재산이 아니라 하더라도, 상속세 및 증여세법 제15조 제1항 제1호가 "피상속인이 재산을 처분하여 받거나 피상속이의 재산에서 인출한 금액이 상속개시일 전 2년 이내에 재산종류별로 계산하여 5억 원 이상인 경우로서 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 용도가 객관적으로 명백하지 아니한 경우에는 이를 상속받은 것으로 추정하여 제13조 규정에 의한 상속세 과세가액에 산입한다."라고 규정하고 있는바, 이BB은 소외 회사 명의의 ○○은행 △△지점 계좌에 입금되어 있던 800만 달러 중 500만 달러를 이BB 명의의 신한은행 ○○지점 계좌로 이체하였다가 사망하기 2년 전인 2004.6.21.경 다시 인출하여 신한은행 ♤♤지점에 있는 자신 명의의 계좌로 송금하였기 때문에 위 500만 달러는 위 상속세법 제15조 제1항 제1호에 따라 상속세 과세가액에 가산되어야 한다고 주장한다.

(ii)judgments

살피건대, 이BB이 2004.6.21.경 자신의 신한은행 ○○지점 계좌에 있던 500만 달러를 신한은행 ♤♤지점 계좌로 송금한 사실은 앞서 인정한 바와 같다.

However, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, in particular, the non-party company entrusted the management of USD 8 million to thisB, while the non-party company reported that ○○○ also invested USD 8 million in the golf course business to the U.S. National Tax Service, the non-party company continued to show the progress of the golf course business to the non-party company, and as can be seen by the statement No. 10 of evidence No. 10, the non-party company was transferred to the non-party company ○○ branch of the new bank on January 6, 2004 to the non-party company in charge of the non-party company ○ branch of ○○ branch of the bank on January 6, 2004 to the non-party company for the purpose of investing in △△ Tourism, and the above 5 million US representative director requesting the transfer of the deposit under the name of this B, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the above 5 million US representative director's assets were the above 5 million US assets cannot be accepted.

(c) Calculation of tax amount;

If the Defendant calculates the inheritance tax again with the exception of KRW 7 billion among the above deposits included in the inherited property of thisB while rendering the above taxation, the inheritance tax amount of the Plaintiff and thisA against the Plaintiff and thisA shall be KRW 5,217,786,626 of the separate sheet (the description of the inheritance tax amount) that the Defendant calculated in the first instance trial and invoked by the Plaintiff, and the amount of the inheritance tax against the Plaintiff shall be KRW 2,608,893,310,000,000,000 for each heir calculated according to the inherited property.

Therefore, the part which exceeds the above tax amount of KRW 2,608,893,310 is unlawful among the tax amount of KRW 4,209,824,663 against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking revocation of this part is with merit.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case, which was changed in the trial, seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition against the AA, is unlawful and dismissed, and the part which sought the revocation of the taxation disposition against the plaintiff is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.