Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap4416 (2010.04.01)

The method of writing and delivering tax notice to co-inheritorss;

In the notice of tax payment, without stating the amount to be borne by the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors and the details of calculation thereof, the taxpayer is identified only as each plaintiff, and the total amount of inheritance tax imposed on the plaintiffs and the grounds for calculation thereof are stated and notified only. The instant disposition was notified to each co-inheritors, but all of the defects in the method of imposing and notifying

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of 61,723,340 won of the inheritance tax belonging to 1998 against the plaintiff on July 16, 2008 is revoked in excess of 6,523,340 won.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim shall be dismissed.

The reasons for this case are as follows. The court's reasoning is that "No. 13, 1998.13, 'No. 3, 18, 20, 6, 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance' is used as "No. 3, 1999.13," and "No. 4, the statement of calculation of the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax and the list of the persons liable to pay inheritance tax and joint and several taxes to be paid to each heir or testamentary donee" can be output separately. In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the documents in this case were printed together and delivered together with the notice to pay inheritance tax of this case. In addition, even if Eul evidence No. 5 or No. 15 were delivered, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff (appointed parties and the designated parties) who are co-inheritors and the person liable to pay the tax of this case were separated, and the fact that the tax payment notice of this case was made by the defendant under the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.