Seocho 2012west 1696 (Law No. 1012.29)

It is difficult to recognize forest land as an inappropriate property for the management and disposition thereof.

In light of the same individual land price, it is difficult to recognize that the video alone constitutes an inappropriate property for the management and disposition of the forest.

2012 old 28674 Revocation of revocation of revocation of payment in kind.

KimAA 5 others

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

March 8, 2013

April 12, 2013

1. All of the actions of the Plaintiff B, thisCC, ED, EE, and EF shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s rejection of payment in kind against Plaintiff KimA on March 15, 2012 shall be revoked.

3. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff KimA and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff Lee B, thisCC, IsD, E, E, and EF and the Defendant is borne by the said Plaintiffs.

The defendant's rejection of payment in kind against the plaintiffs on March 15, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff KimA is the wife of thisG, and the plaintiff Lee B, thisCC, IsD, E, and EF are children of thisG.

B. 1) This GG and Plaintiff KimA shared 11,778m2, 00, 000, 000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,324m2,00 m2,000 m2,684m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,684 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “

2) The GG died on May 23, 201, and the Plaintiff KimA completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 28, 201 with respect to shares of 2/3 that were owned by thisG out of the forest land before the instant partition on May 23, 2011.

C. On November 30, 201, Plaintiff KimA reported the taxable value and tax base of inheritance tax to the Defendant, and applied for payment in kind on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price (00 won per square meter) as of January 1, 2010, on the premise of the division of forest land before the instant subdivision, the Plaintiff KimA assessed the 2/3 portion of the forest owned by thisG on the premise of the division of forest land before the instant subdivision, and applied for payment in kind.

D. On December 8, 2011, the forest land before the instant subdivision was combined with 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 prior to subdivision on February 7, 2012, the forest land of this case was divided into 5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000 21,355 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”), 0000 square meters, 11,778 square meters among the forest land before the instant subdivision, 000000, 1000000, 1000000, 10000,0000 and 208.

E. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff KimA evaluated the forest of this case as KRW 000 and applied for the change of payment in kind to the Defendant. On March 15, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of refusal of payment in kind (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to manage and dispose of the forest of this case through the division of shares (hereinafter “reasons 1”) to Plaintiff KimA through the division of shares.

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 29, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 29, 2012.

G. According to Article 70(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, where the Defendant makes an application for payment in kind on the premise of the division of property or the division of property, he may allow payment in kind only if the value of the property for which the application for payment in kind was made is not reduced than the day before the division. Since the value of the forest land in this case reduces above the value of the forest land before the division, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that “the disposition in this case is legitimate” (hereinafter referred

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, Gap evidence 9-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the actions of the Plaintiff B, thisCC, ED, EE, and EF are legitimate

Ex officio, the action for cancellation can be brought by a person who has legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition (see Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act). As seen earlier, only the plaintiff KimA filed an application for the alteration of payment in kind with the defendant, and the defendant made the disposition against the plaintiff KimA. As such, the defendant did not have a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition in this case against the plaintiff LeeB, thisCC, ED, EE, and EF. Accordingly, all of the lawsuits by the plaintiff LeeB, thisCC, ED, E, E, and EF are unlawful.

3. Judgment on Plaintiff KimA’s assertion

A. Plaintiff KimA’s assertion

1) As to the ground for first disposition

According to Article 73 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201); Article 71 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24358, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); Article 19-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the division of shares does not constitute an inappropriate reason for the management and disposition. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) As to the ground for second disposition

While the Defendant added the ground for 2 disposition that the value of the forest in this case was reduced compared to that of 2/3 shares out of the forest in this case before the instant partition, it cannot be allowed to add the said ground as it does not coincide with the ground for 1 disposition and the basic factual relations, and the value of the forest in this case does not decrease below that of 2/3 shares out of the forest in this case before the instant partition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the ground for first disposition

A) Article 73(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the value of the real estate and securities among the property inherited or donated exceeds 1/2 of the value of the relevant property and the amount of the inheritance tax or gift tax payable exceeds 000 won, the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may, upon the application of the taxpayer, allow the payment in kind only for the real estate and securities: Provided, That where the management and disposition of the property for which an application for payment in kind is filed is deemed inappropriate, it may not be permitted to grant the payment in kind. Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "Where the management and disposition of the property is inappropriate, such as superficies, easement, right to lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, etc." (Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the owner of the land and the building on which the application for payment in kind has been made is different (Article 3) and where the management and disposition is deemed inappropriate (Article 19-4).

B) In the case of the forest of this case, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the size and value of the forest of this case reduced compared to the share of 2/3 of the forest of this case which the Plaintiff first applied for permission for payment in kind. It is not only expected to reduce the value of OO 000 forest of this case by comparing it with 21,355 square meters, but also because the topography and location are very poor, such as the surface and location abutting on the sea without access roads, and thus, it constitutes an inappropriate property. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above 2000 square meters of the forest of this case were 1,000 square meters of the forest of this case, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8-1, 8-1, 9-1, 2, and 000 square meters of the forest of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above 10000 square meters of the forest of this case is 01,000 square meters of the forest of this case.

2) As to the ground for second disposition

A) Whether additional grounds for disposition are permitted

In an appeal litigation seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds within the extent that the basic factual relations are identical to those of the initial disposition. However, the fact that the basic factual relations are identical refers to the same basic social factual relations based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for the disposition. It cannot be deemed as adding or changing new grounds for disposition only to the extent that the disposition agency does not change specific facts at the time of the disposition, or to explicitly indicate the reasons for the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13791, 13807, Feb. 28, 2008). However, since the forest of this case is the same as the forest of this case as the forest of this case where the Plaintiff applied for the initial application for the permission of payment in kind, it can be deemed that the ground for the disposition of this case is more inappropriate than the 2/3 share of the forest of this case, which is the same as that of the forest of this case, and thus, the value of the forest of this case is more inappropriate than the 2/3 forest of this case.

(B) the existence of a ground for action 2

On January 1, 2010, the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2010 is as seen earlier, and according to Gap evidence No. 1 to 6, the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 201 was 21,80 square meters for the land of this case included in the forest of this case, among the forest land before the division of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 201 was 00 square meters for the land of this case, 14,839 square meters for 00 square meters for the land of this case, 00 square meters for each 00 square meters for 00 square meters for the land of this case, 000 OO00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 201 00 06. 201 01 06.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the lawsuit of the plaintiff Lee B, thisCC, ED, EE, and EF is unlawful, all of them are dismissed. The claim of this case by the plaintiff KimA is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff KimA.