Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu 20363 ( October 26, 2015)

money received by an heir from his/her workplace upon the death of the decedent shall constitute retirement allowances, etc. with deemed inherited property.

It is reasonable to view that the money of this case paid to the heir due to the death of the decedent at the workplace of the decedent was paid as retirement allowance upon the death of the decedent because the decedent was in the position of representative director, and therefore, barring any special circumstance, it shall be regarded as inherited property pursuant to the main sentence of Article

Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu3989 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Imposition of Inheritance Tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap20363

July 15, 2015

August 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On October 10, 2012, the part of the imposition imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff exceeding KRW 00 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that if the deceased was not the representative director of DD and EE in front of the 6th written judgment of the court of first instance, the two companies will add "no other reason exists to pay the amount of the issue of this case to the plaintiff." The following is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the conjunctive assertion made by the plaintiff in the trial under Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the key issues of this case, ○○○○ Won is a group insurance contract with FF and paid insurance money to DD again to the Plaintiff, even if DD had paid it again, the final beneficiary of group insurance has the nature of insurance money against the Plaintiff according to the purport of the Supreme Court precedent that held that DD would be an inheritor. Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed DD as retirement allowance of the inheritee was unlawful.

B. Determination

On the other hand, the judgment cited by the Plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 98Da59613 delivered on May 25, 199) is that a group insurance contract may be concluded for the benefit of a third party with the insured who is a member of an organization as a beneficiary of an insurance policy, and that a policyholder may be a beneficiary of an insurance contract for himself/herself with the policyholder as a beneficiary of an insurance contract. Even if a policyholder was designated as a beneficiary, if it can be deemed that there exists a mutual agreement between the policyholder and the insured who is a member of an organization as a beneficiary, the policyholder company is obligated to pay the amount received with the insurance money to the insured or his/her heir, and it is difficult to view that the amount paid by the company received by the company as a beneficiary of a group insurance constitutes the insurance

(c)

According to the overall purport of evidence No. 9-1, No. 2, 3, and evidence No. 10, as well as the overall purport of the arguments, DNA concluded a group insurance contract with the FF on Jan. 22, 2010 that provides that the employees including the decedent shall be the insured, and that DDR shall be a beneficiary (workplace corporate security insurance). According to the above insurance contract, if the insured dies during the insurance period, the FF requires the beneficiary to pay the insurance proceeds for accident death agreed upon by the beneficiary; the FF paid ○○ under the above insurance contract upon the death of the decedent; and DDR paid the amount equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff on Apr. 23, 2010.

According to the above facts, in group insurance between DD and FF, the beneficiary is only DD, and DD's payment of the above insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff is based on the unity of will between the decedent and DD, and it is not due to the beneficiary's failure to pay the above insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the above ○○○○○ cannot be viewed as insurance money for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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