Gwangju District Court-2018-Guhap-449 ( October 17, 2019)

Cho Jae-2018-Magju-0637 (2018.06)

Whether the deceased had an obligation to pay the provisional payment to the juristic person before the death

(See of the first instance judgment) The deceased cannot be deemed to have held a debt owed to the legal entity before the death. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the money withdrawn from the account held in the name of the deceased was reverted to the heir.

Articles 2 and 13 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015)

The revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax and gift tax by the Gwangju High Court 2019Nu10350

AAA and 1

BB Head of tax office et al.

on October 13, 2019

on July 25, 2019

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 193,913,222 of the inheritance tax against the Plaintiffs on October 12, 2017 by Defendant BB head of the tax office shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 312,792,035 of the gift tax against Plaintiff A on October 12, 2017 by Defendant CCC head of the tax office shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the court stated “No. 25, 2016.11.25” in Section 4, Section 3 of the first instance judgment as “No. 2016.11.22, 2016.11.22.” As such, the court cites the first instance judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is just and without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.