early 209Gu4036 (23, 2010.03)

Where an ancestor donates a third party's debt with immunity, it shall be included in the value of the inheritance tax.

Since the inheritee did not have agreed for any consideration or condition in return for the assumption of an obligation while accepting the obligation of a third party with immunity, the inheritee paid profits to a third party as much as the assumption of obligation amount, which constitutes the property value donated by the inheritee to the third party, and thus the disposition imposed on the property value of the inheritance tax is legitimate.

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The part of the disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 147,159,127 against the plaintiffs on September 9, 2009 exceeding KRW 1,237,297 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 8, 2007, the father of the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the father") died, and the father of the plaintiffs and the mother of the plaintiffs and the mother of the plaintiffs (the mother of July 10, 2008 death) declared inheritance tax on June 8, 2008 with the taxable value of KRW 1,913,302,658.

B. On the other hand, on July 19, 2002, the decedent, who owns ○○○○○○-dong 198-41 land and buildings (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”), offered collateral to △△△ Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△△ Bank”) and offered a loan to △△△ (hereinafter “△△”), and received a loan from △△ (hereinafter “△△”), and on September 12, 2006, △△ Co., Ltd. entered into an indemnity agreement with the decedent on October 25, 2006, to accept the decedent’s debt 61,180,000 won as a discharge.

C. The defendant confirmed the above facts through the inheritance tax investigation of the decedent, and on September 9, 2009, on the premise that the decedent acquired 611,180,000 won from the obligation of △△ corporation through the assumption of obligation through the assumption of obligation agreement, and determined and notified the above assumption of obligation, 13,675,80 won from the assessment of the underreported building, and 8,010,946 won from the deposit and investment amount of the financial institution omitted in the report, and then deducted 18,052,980 won from the taxable value of the leased business, global income tax, and global income tax return, 17,880,616 won from the total tax return, and additional tax 15,376,739 won from the bad faith of payment, including additional tax 15,159,127 won from the inheritance tax (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 17, 2009, but the Plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed on March 23, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In a situation where it is entirely impossible to exercise the right to indemnity against △△ after the performance of the obligation, the act of acquiring the obligation of the inheritee is merely an inevitable measure to prevent the commencement of the auction procedure immediately on the instant real estate, and it is merely an inevitable change of the obligation of the surety as the principal obligor who cannot exercise the right to indemnity into the obligation of the principal obligor, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the obligation of the inheritee has been additionally borne.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the term "donations" means transferring tangible and intangible property which can calculate economic value to another person, either directly or indirectly, or increasing the value of another person's property by contribution, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of such act or transaction. Article 13 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that the value of property donated to a person who is not an ancestor within five years before the date inheritance commences shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance, and Article 36 of the same Act provides that the value of property donated to a person who is not an ancestor shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance, and the value of property donated to the ancestor shall be the amount equivalent to the profit from such exemption, acquisition, or repayment (if a compensation amount is paid, the amount subtracting such amount of compensation) if the person receives the exemption of an obligation from, or

According to the statement No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1, since the decedent has not agreed for any consideration, condition, etc. in return for the assumption of obligation when he/she takes over the obligation of △△ with the discharge of the obligation of △△, the decedent gains that he/she would be exempted from the obligation of △△ as much as the assumption of obligation (the occurrence of the benefit of △△ due to the exempted assumption of obligation is not a relation with the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to indemnity against △△), it is reasonable to deem the benefit as the donation amount to △△ pursuant to the above legal provision, and this constitutes the value of property donated to the person who is not the heir within five years before the date of commencing the inheritance. Therefore, it is legitimate to deem that the Defendant’s disposition was made by including

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.