2012west 3209

The comparable apartment is different from the apartment of this case, and the standard market price is different, and it cannot be viewed as business example.

The comparable apartment is different from the apartment of this case, and the standard market price is different, and it cannot be seen as business example, and the defendant's disposition is legitimate.

Articles 61 and 62 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap7049 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

Gangwon A

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 19, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 8, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the inheritance tax OOOO on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 25, 2009, in collusion with the RedE at the time when he/she serves as the Chairman, he/she was convicted of one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the Seoul High Court and of one year and six months of penalty surcharges, and of one year and one year and six months of the penalty surcharges (hereinafter referred to as "criminal judgment") on the charge of receiving OOOO(hereinafter referred to as OOOOOO(hereinafter referred to as OOOOO) through this H in collusion with the RedE in order to request the guarantee of exclusive business rights for the treatment of pulmonary pressures from Pacific, and through this H in response to the following solicitation:

【Written List of Deposits】

net

Congress

Date and

Amount (Methods)

Use Place

1

Order of November 2007

OOOO Cash Delivery

(1) Payment of OOE to Park II (the wife of the deceased) on December 11, 2007

(2) Payment to Park II on December 13, 2007 to OOOB

③ Payment of OOO members to the deceased’s children on February 11, 2008

(4) OOOOO members shall use the deceased's her debt repayment.

2

June 10, 2008

OOOO Cash Delivery

① Payment of OOO members to the deceased’s children on July 7, 2008

② Payment of OOO members to the deceased’s children on September 22, 2008

(3) 10 million won shall be used for the repayment of the deceased’s obligations.

3

January 12, 2009

OOOO Cash Delivery

(1) The payment of OOO members to the deceased on January 20, 2009.

(2) The deceased's attorney-at-law on March 2009 and the deceased's attorney-at-law.

Total

OOOE

B. The Deceased, who was dissatisfied with a criminal judgment, filed a final appeal, but died on December 1, 2009, which was pending in the final appeal, and accordingly, the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the 10th day of the same month (2009Do1139).

C. The deceased’s wife Park II and ASEAN, the plaintiff, and the JJ (hereinafter collectively referred to as “heirs”) succeeded to the OOO-dong 426 OOO 102 and 704 (hereinafter referred to as the “the apartment of this case”) owned by the deceased, and reported the OOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

D. On January 24, 2011, the Defendant recognized that the value of the instant apartment among the details reported by the inheritors was appropriate, but among the OOO members reported as inheritance obligations, the remainder, except for the OO members of the deceased, was not recognized as inheritance obligations, and determined and notified the OO members of inheritance tax to the inheritors.

E. On April 8, 2012, the director of the regional tax office issued an cross-audit on the Defendant, and confirmed that the consent 1201 to the instant apartment and the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as “sale case apartment”) was transacted on September 16, 2009, which was within six months before and after the date of commencing the inheritance, and indicated that the sales price should be deemed the market price of the instant apartment. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the KRW OOOO of the inheritance tax to the inheritor on June 8, 2012 by deeming the transaction price of the instant apartment to be the price of the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

F. On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 28, 2012 (However, the Tax Tribunal, ex officio, decided that the Plaintiff’s OOOOO which was discharged to this KK, a creditor of the Deceased, deducted from the value of inherited property. However, on March 28, 2011, the Defendant already deducted and corrected the inheritance tax OOOOOO that was already deducted from the value of inherited property).

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and arguments, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-1, and Eul evidence 4

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the apartment of this case is in the same Dong as the apartment of this case, it is difficult to see that the area, location, and use are identical or similar to the apartment complex of this case, and rather, it is similar to the apartment complex of this case in 103 Dong 701 (hereinafter referred to as "non-intersection apartment") such as the transaction around January 2010. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case in which the sales price of the apartment of this case is regarded as the market price of the apartment of this case is regarded as the price of the apartment of this case, is in violation of Article 60 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916 of Jan. 1, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 49 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

B. On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff received legal advice and repaid the full amount of solicitation to Red E, which is substantially the same as the Plaintiff’s repayment of inheritance obligations, and even if having the obligation to return solicitation money under civil law, it is reasonable to deduct the amount repaid as above in accordance with the principle of ability to respond under tax law from the value of inherited property. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Whether the value of the apartment of this case is calculated appropriately

(1) Current status of the instant apartment and sales cases of neighboring apartment

(A) The 101 unit of apartment complex, such as the 102 unit unit to which the apartment of this case belongs, can view the Han River in direct contact, but the 103 unit unit is disadvantageous to the Han River view after 101 unit.

(B) If the individual characteristics of the instant apartment, sales example apartment, and comparative apartment are compared and arranged, it is as follows (Provided, That the sales price is based on the sales price offered to the members at the time of reconstruction of the instant apartment, and the standard market price is the current standard on January 1, 2010).

The apartment of this case

(102, No. 704)

Case of sales apartment

(102 Dong 1201)

Compared Apartment

(103 Dong 701)

Exclusive Area

134.9С

134.9С

137.37㎡

Direction

Southwester

Southwester

Southwester

Observation

Han River Madern net

Han River Madern net

Dog River Dogne

SectorFlograms

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Standard market price (won)

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Sales Price

OOOE

OOOE

(C) The following are the apartment sales cases in the same complex as the instant apartment before the commencement date of the inheritance.

Number of clubs

Exclusive Area

Date of contract

Sales Price (won)

Standard market price (won)

103, 301

137.37㎡

.1, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

103, 1301

137.37㎡

July 18, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

103, 401

137.37㎡

July 18, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

Case of sales apartment

134.9С

September 16, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

103, 501

137.37㎡

January 23, 2010

OOOE

OOOE

Compared Apartment

137.37㎡

February 4, 2010

OOOE

OOOE

103, 1102

137.37㎡

Mar. 30, 2010

OOOE

OOOE

The apartment of this case

134.9С

OOOE

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, 9, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, evidence 4, and Eul evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

(A) Article 60(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the value of the property on which inheritance tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the base date of appraisal, and the market price shall be the price generally recognized as normal in cases of free transactions between many and unspecified persons, and shall include cases recognized as the market price by the method of expropriation, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the transaction price shall be deemed as the market price in cases where there is a trade event involving the same or similar property area, location, use, and items as at least six months before

(B) The following circumstances revealed the facts found in the above, i.e., the sales apartment selected by the defendant, i.e., the size and structure of the apartment complex in the same Dong as the apartment complex in this case, and in particular, the conditions of Han River view, which is a major element of price determination, are considerably similar to the characteristics of the apartment complex located on the Han River side. ② On the other hand, the comparative apartment is different from the apartment complex in the size and structure of the apartment complex in this case, and there are considerable differences in the unit price and the standard market price, and in particular, the conditions of Han River landscape are very unfavorable in comparison with the apartment complex in this case. ③ The sales apartment is located on the high floor in this case and the sale price is too small compared with other apartments, and the difference seems to be the lowest compared to those in this case, and the standard market price of the apartment in this case is the same as the standard market price of the apartment in this case at the time of January 1, 2010.

(b) Whether a solicitation money should be deducted from the value of inherited property;

(1) OOOO of attorney's fees

The plaintiff asserts the full deduction of the entire amount of solicitation, but among them, the OOO members (as mentioned above, Nos. 3-2 of the above table) had already been deducted from the value of inherited property at the time of the disposition of this case by the defendant at the time of the disposition of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument on this part is without merit without further review.

(2) The remainder of the solicitation fund OOO

Considering the overall purport of the arguments, Gap, 7, and 8, the plaintiff's transfer of OOOOO to HongE on March 10, 2010, after the deceased's death, the plaintiff can be recognized. However, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the deceased's receipt of illegal solicitation in relation to profit-making business, and i.e., the deceased's receipt of solicitation. This is null and void as a juristic act which violates good customs and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the arbitrator cannot file any claim such as return of solicitation or compensation for damages, etc. under Article 746 of the Civil Act. Thus, it is difficult to see that the deceased or its inheritors bear the obligation under Article 14 (1) 3 of the Civil Act with respect to solicitation. ② In particular, RedE did not cooperate with the deceased, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's return of OOOOOO payments to the deceased, and that it was difficult for the plaintiff to receive it from PO.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party.