Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-81383 ( October 11, 2017)

The plaintiff's proof of the existence of the inheritance obligation is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

At the time of commencement of the inheritance, it refers to a debt that the decedent is deemed to have to have to have been ultimately borne and to have to be performed, and the liability for assertion as to the existence is on the part of the person liable for duty payment who contests the taxable value

Article 14 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act

2017Nu52087 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

National Rotations

on 19, 2018

02.02 09

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On August 5, 2015, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 128,165,818 (the KRW 128,165,718, written complaint) against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2015.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following, and therefore, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the grounds asserted by the plaintiff in this court while appealed from the court of first instance do not significantly differ from the contents of the plaintiff asserted by the court of first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court are examined, it is reasonable

○ 5 pages 5,60 " 5,600" at the bottom of the table below 1,60, and on the 6th page "81,861" at the last parallel of the table above 77,861, respectively.

○ 8 pages (based on recognition) add “A No. 15” to the 8 pages (based on recognition).

○ 10 pages 10 are as follows.

“The facts that the Plaintiff prepared and executed the instant confirmation document are as seen earlier, and according to the evidence No. 20, 00B, 0B prepared to the Plaintiff a written confirmation to the effect that “The decedent was unable to pay the rent for the building due to financial difficulties due to considerable expenditures, such as treatment expenses, nursing expenses, and living expenses, and so on.” As the revenues of the building were difficult to be able to cope with, and the Plaintiff’s objection was requested despite the Plaintiff’s objection. As the relationship between the sexual and the new provider was deep trust and thus, it was a transaction that does not require any loan increase or contract.”

○ 11, 13, and 14 shall be advanced as follows:

"A." No. 11 to 13, and No. 21 submitted by the Plaintiff in relation to the obligation at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue 3 of the instant case is merely a nursing fact and a nursing service contract, etc. (Evidence No. 11-3 and No. 21 are related to the nursing time and nursing service for the elderly welfare center at Gangnam-do, Gangnam-do, and there are no objective data such as financial data to support the payment. In particular, even if the evidence No. 21 submitted by the Plaintiff in relation to the obligation at issue 3 of the instant case, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant paid nursing expenses from July 11, 2013 to Oct. 201, 2013.)"

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.