Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu 62692 ( October 17, 2015)

It is insufficient to view that the deposit, etc. in the name of the inheritor falls under the inherited property as the borrowed asset of the deceased.

The deceased and the plaintiff et al. were present directly in financial institutions by bringing them into the Republic of Korea and depositing them into their accounts in their names by 1991-2001. Unless there is no evidence to prove that there was a clear agreement between the deceased and their inheritors to vest their rights to claim the return of their deposits in the deceased, the parties to the above deposit contract should be regarded as successors.

Articles 1 (Inheritance Tax Taxables) and 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu54713 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax, etc.

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

December 2, 2016

January 20, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 19, 2015, as stated in the separate sheet, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) Eul, which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence to be additionally submitted in the trial; (b) written evidence Nos. 35 and 36; and (c) partially testified of the witness Lee ○○○ of the trial court; (d) "the network and his heir" of No. 9 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as "BB, CCC, and the plaintiff"; and (b) "BB, CCC, and the plaintiff, from 1991 to 2001, deposited into the accounts under their names and directly attended the financial institutions and transacted in the account; and (c) unless there is any evidence to prove that there was a clear agreement between the deceased and their inheritors to transfer their rights to claim the return of their deposits to the deceased, the parties to the above contract should be deemed the above inheritor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009).

Even if the Plaintiff and the Deceased opened a new account under the name of another inheritor without receiving a separate power of attorney since 2007, this is nothing more than the situation after other inheritors received money in Korea and opened and deposited the account in their own name as above, and the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except that the 10th class 16th class “B” is deemed to be “c Co., Ltd.,” and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.