Whether it is reasonable to regard the appraisal value at the time exceeding the evaluation period stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the market price.

Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (in cases of donated property, 3 months before or after the date of donation) is an example of recognizing the appraisal price, etc. at the market price in cases where there is an appraisal price, etc. within six months before or after the date of commencing the inheritance, and it is merely an example of recognizing the appraisal price, etc. at the market price.

Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Guhap67070

On May 30, 2014 and June 25, 2015, which is the time of price at which the appraisal was made.

The level of the party price index was only the change in the value of the party, but the change in the form and quality of land or its surrounding exchange.

It seems that there was no special circumstance that could affect price fluctuations, such as light change, and the instant case

The donation of land and the commencement of inheritance have been completed at the time of the above price.

(3) The appraisal value of this case shall be the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

It has been evaluated in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 70, and the above provision shall be the compensation for the land.

Public notice under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Movables Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Movables Act");

on the basis of land price, and the relevant land under the relevant laws and regulations from the basic date to the price;

land use plan, and land price changes in areas where land price is not affected due to the relevant public works;

Taking into account the Dong rate, producer price inflation rate, and other location, shape, environment, and situation of the relevant land;

(2) The Public Notice of Real Estate Act provides that the public Notice of Real Estate Act shall be a reasonable price assessed by the public.

The law for the provision of basic matters, etc. concerning disclosure (Article 1), 'the appropriate price'

the normal transaction of the real estate, such as land, is made in the ordinary market;

means the price which is deemed to have the highest possibility of being constituted (Article 2 subparagraph 5). Accordingly, each of the above paragraphs

The appraised value of this case under the Act shall be the market price at which the value of property subject to inheritance tax or gift tax is assessed.

section 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides that

the appraisal value of this case shall be based on the appraisal or assessment for the determination of compensation for expropriation;

Payment of inheritance tax and gift tax solely on the ground that it is a value determined higher than the officially announced value by at least 30%;

No purpose shall be deemed inappropriate.

(4) The proviso to Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not fall under the evaluation period.

the appraisal price during a period not exceeding two years before the evaluation base date;

Recognition that there are no special circumstances to change price in consideration of the progress between them, changes in surrounding environment, etc.

In cases of becoming an average value of appraisal after consultation with the Evaluation Deliberation Committee under Article 56-2 (1), the average value shall be

Article 56-2 provides that the amount may be recognized as the market price, and Article 56-2 provides that the amount shall be recognized as the market price.

Under the title of "evaluation, etc. of listed stocks", the Evaluation Deliberative Committee shall, upon a taxpayer's request, hold an emergency

property related to inheritance tax and gift tax (paragraph (1)), at the same time, prescribe that the appraisal of shares may be made;

If it is deemed necessary for fair and reasonable evaluation, the property evaluation by the head of the competent tax office;

section 7 of this title provides that advice may be provided.

In full view of these relevant provisions, the Evaluation Review Committee shall have no taxpayer's application.

The head of the competent tax office, where it is deemed necessary for other property than unlisted stocks.

It is reasonable to consider that it can respond to requests for advice on the appraisal of property.

The proviso to Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax-Related Act provides that “The Evaluation Deliberative Committee under Article 56-2(1)” shall be construed.

In accordance with Article 56-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree, the definition of "Evaluation Review Committee" shall be established.

I seem to refer only to the definition (Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act).

2 As to "National Tax Service Evaluation Deliberation Committee" in Paragraph 2, and "Local Public Service Evaluation Deliberation Committee" in Paragraph 8.

defined).

D. Determination on the imposition of additional tax

1) Underreported penalty tax portion

A) Five parcels of land equivalent to the plaintiffs' total amount of KRW 000,000,000 at the time of reporting inheritance tax and gift tax

The facts of omitting KRW 000,000,000 in cash are as recognized in paragraph 1 above, and evidence No. 2

According to the purport of the entire statements and arguments of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 3 and 4-2, 3 and 4, the under-reported return of this case

The penalty tax may be recognized as imposed on the property for which the above return was omitted.

B) According to the above facts, the imposition of penalty tax for underreporting of this case is imposed on the land of this case.

It is not imposed in relation to the above additional tax, and there is no room to regard the above additional tax as illegal.

Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit on different premises.

2) Additional tax for insincere payment

The following facts are acknowledged by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings in the grounds for recognition mentioned above.

In light of the circumstances, the imposition of penalty tax against the nonperformance of payment in this case cannot be deemed unlawful.

(c)

① The appraisal value of the instant land at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the instant land

Although the plaintiffs assessed as KRW 0,000,000,000, they claimed that the above appraisal value is low, they shall be consulted.

(2) If the appraisal was made on June 25, 2015, the date of the determination, the date of the determination, shall be

As a result, the compensation value of the instant land was determined in KRW 0,000,000. Accordingly, the compensation value of the instant land was determined in KRW 0,000.

When the plaintiffs report gift tax or inheritance tax, the final amount of compensation for the land of this case.

It could be confirmed.

② If the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes were verified, the appraised price of the instant land would have been appraised.

In the case of an appraisal value, it is sufficiently known that the inheritance tax or gift tax may be levied according to the appraisal value.

Inheritance tax and inheritance tax on the land of this case on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price, even though it appears to have been

I reported the leisure tax.

(3) Penalty taxes under tax law shall be to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims.

If a taxpayer violates a tax return, tax liability, etc. prescribed by the law without any justifiable reason, the law shall be determined.

(1) The taxpayer's intention or negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions imposed under the same paragraph.

In addition, the land or mistake of statutes cannot be deemed as a justifiable ground (Supreme Court).

In addition, an additional tax for unfaithful payment is a taxpayer.

In order to induce the payment of tax in good faith, the unpaid tax shall not be paid by the due date.

amount shall be deemed to have received financial benefits, and shall be subject to the violation of the obligation to pay.

Taking into account the facts that are administrative sanctions, there is a difference in the valuation of the value of the donated property.

the subject of the imposition of additional tax, even if such tax is unpaid, shall be excluded from the subject of the imposition of additional tax.

(2) In addition, the above circumstances alone do not require payment of the tax amount to be paid.

No reasonable ground may be deemed to exist against the Plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23200 Decided January 14, 2010)

In light of the above legal principles, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs are alone.

The appraisal value of the land in this case is not reported at the market price, and there are reasonable grounds for not reporting the appraisal value.

The term of aircraft is insufficient.

E. Sub-committee

The plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted in entirety, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

Republic of Korea AAA2

LAA 00 million won, KoreaB 00 million won, HongB 00 million won, HongB 00 million won, redCC 00 million won, and HongCC 00 million won

The omission was confirmed.

In addition, the Director of △△ Regional Tax Office has expropriated the land of this case into the Korea Highway Corporation.

The appraisal value of three appraisal institutions established on May 30, 2014 shall be verified by the appraisal committee, and the appraisal value shall be determined by the Evaluation Deliberation Committee.

The value of the instant land after consultation shall be KRW 0,000,000,000, which is the average amount of the appraised value of the said land (hereinafter referred to as “the

'The appraisal value of this case' shall be determined as the appraisal value of this case, and the calculation of the omitted inherited property and wrong calculation

The taxation data on the value of the inherited property was notified to the Defendants, the disposition agency.

E. According to the notified taxation data, the Defendants are provided to the Plaintiffs with the following descriptions:

A decision of correction and notification of inheritance tax and gift tax (hereinafter referred to as below) was made;

The disposal part shall not be divided into principal tax and additional tax, but shall be "disposition of this case", and where necessary.

only shall be classified).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted as follows and stated in the purport of the claim against the disposition of this case

cancellation shall be sought.

1) The appraisal value of the instant case is the evaluation period stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (6)

It shall be based on the time of departure from the month, donation date, three months before and after donation date, and trade, such as sale and purchase.

Determination of compensation not to identify the reasonable price that can be set up in an appropriate transaction;

for B. Meanwhile, the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 26960 on February 5, 2016) (Presidential Decree No. 269

The proviso of Article 49(1) of the Act (amended by the Act; hereinafter the same shall apply) does not have any special reason for the price fluctuation.

In other words, the value during the period not exceeding two years before the base date of appraisal can be recognized as the market price.

The decision of expropriation of the land of this case was made on June 25, 2015.

Since the fixed value was assessed as KRW 000,000,000, the assessed value was different from the assessed value of this case;

It cannot be deemed that there are no special circumstances in regard of price fluctuations. Accordingly, this does not constitute “the case of price fluctuations.”

The appraisal value of this case, which is not deemed the market price, shall be deemed to be the market price and the appraisal value shall be deemed to be determined.

(c)

2) In principle, the Evaluation Review Committee shall only evaluate unlisted stocks upon a taxpayer’s application.

The Defendants are subject to deliberation. However, there are no applications from the Plaintiffs and the case of the unlisted stock evaluation.

The Evaluation Deliberative Committee is not a case where it is possible to undergo deliberation by the Evaluation Deliberative Committee.

Based on the results of deliberation, the appraisal value of this case was determined as the market price of the land of this case.

There are procedural defects in the disposition of this case.

3) The Plaintiffs to report gift tax by applying the appraisal value of the instant land at the market price of the instant land

Since it could not have been expected to do so, the imposition of penalty tax on this part is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination on the assertion on market price and procedural defect

1) Relevant regulations and legal principles

Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14388, Dec. 20, 2016);

in paragraph 1, the principle of market value is declared in the valuation of inherited or donated property.

the market price under subsection (2) is formed by a general and normal transaction, and is objective

on the premise that the exchange value should be properly reflected, and on the premise that the market price can be recognized as the market price,

The criteria are presented and the specific scope is authorized to be determined by the Presidential Decree;

Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by delegation of the above provision

The representative case that can be seen as the market price of the donated property is the example of the case (Supreme Court January 14, 2010).

Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23200).

Within 6 months (in cases of donated property, 3 months before or after the date of donation) before or after the commencement of the inheritance date;

In the case of appraisal price, etc., the appraisal price, etc. which is recognized as the market price is not an example.

As such, the objective exchange value shall be reflected in the appraisal price after the above period or before;

at the market price, if any.

In addition, the scope of market price referred to in this article includes the appraisal price of a reliable appraisal institution.

The value of the appraisal is not different even if it is based on the retroactive appraisal, but merely the appraisal.

It is reasonable to make this reasonable and to evaluate it in an objective and reasonable manner (Supreme Court Decision 200

8.2. 1. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1834 delivered on February 1, 200

2) Determination

Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 shall include the whole purport of the pleadings.

According to the following facts or circumstances, the appraisal value of the instant case is governed by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The market price of the land in this case can be seen as 'market price', and in determining the market price of the land in this case,

Even if the evaluation committee was consulted without consultation, there is procedural defect.

subsection (b) of this section.

(1) The appraisal value of this case was expropriated in the Korea Highway Corporation to compensate for the land.

Each value assessed by a reliable three appraisal institutions on May 30, 2014 at the time of the price, respectively.

average. The Korea Highway Corporation or appraisal agency which has requested appraisal or which has assessed it shall be admitted and admitted.

The appraisal of the land of this case for the purpose of compensation, but the fraudulent appraisal or market price is excessive.

There is no reason to evaluate.

② Consultation is held on the ground that the initial compensation was low at the time of expropriation of the instant land

Unestablishedd, the Central Land Tribunal has set up two appraisal agencies for adjudication, and the same shall apply to two appraisal agencies for adjudication.

The appraisal was requested. The average appraisal value at the time of the appraisal as of June 25, 2015.

The amount was KRW 0,000,000,000, taking into account that the price index was 2% increased in June 2015.

BB Head of the tax office 1

April 20, 2018

May 18, 2018

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Defendant BB director of the tax office on August 1, 2016

A. The amount exceeding KRW 000,000,000 among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 on Plaintiff Han-A

part and additional tax 00,000,000

B. The amount exceeding KRW 000,000,000,000 among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff Park ParkA

Each disposition of imposition of tax of KRW 00,000,000 shall be revoked.

2. Inheritance tax amounting to KRW 0,000,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff Han on August 9, 2016 by the director of the tax office for DefendantCC

The portion exceeding 0,000,000,000 won of the disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs are married couple, and Han-D is the father of the plaintiff Han-A.

B. On February 27, 2015, HanD: (a) donated the Plaintiffs with △△△dong 】 】 】 】 (b) and 12 parcels; (c) on March 3, 2015 and on March 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer under their respective names with respect to one half of the land donated as above. On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff Hana reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 as gift tax; and (b) Plaintiff Park Jong-A reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 as gift tax. At the time of reporting the gift tax, the Plaintiffs calculated the land value based on the officially assessed individual land price; (d) △△△dong 】 】 (e) 】 x 12 parcels (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”); and (e) 00,000,000 won for the inheritance tax base reported and paid KRW 30,000,000,000.

D. As a result of the △△ Director’s investigation of the inheritance tax on the deceased from January 29, 2016 to April 7, 2016, the head of the competent regional tax office: (a) △△△△△△ City equivalent to the aggregate of KRW 155,331,709 with inherited property 】 (5 parcels of land located in the Dong 】 KRW 000,000,000 in cash with donated property prior to donation; (b)