Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-12991 ( October 19, 2016)

Cho High Court Decision 2015Do3519 (No. 11, 2015)

In the event of payment in kind with respect to the same property, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the preceding disposition of refusal to grant payment in kind.

Even if the rejection disposition prior to the payment in kind of inheritance tax is revoked, there is no benefit in legal action because the relevant property has already been appropriated for payment in kind.

Article 54 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act

2016Nu47903 The revocation of revocation of application for the payment in kind of inheritance tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap12991 decided May 19, 2016

September 27, 2016

October 25, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant 20 x. 】. 】. 】. The rejection of application for payment in kind of inheritance tax against the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.