Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap1882 (Law No. 041, 2013)

It shall not be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes because it constitutes a debt which cannot be confirmed as a gift debt.

In the light of the purport of not recognizing the obligation of donation to the inheritor of an inheritee, the evidence presented in accordance with strict evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the obligation that cannot be confirmed in light of the fact that the obligation of donation to the inheritor of the inheritee is insufficient to recognize it.

2013Nu7195 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

KimA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap18882 Decided January 4, 2013

October 25, 2013

November 29, 2013

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On October 1, 2010, among the disposition imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the part exceeding each of the imposition imposed by each of the OOOOOOO in the disposition imposed by each of the OOOOOOOOOO members, the designated parties, and the KimCC on the part of the disposition imposed by each of the OOOOO members of the disposition imposed by each of the OOOOOOO members of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on the Plaintiff and the designated parties, shall be revoked.

B. The remaining claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 90% of the total litigation costs are borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties, and 10% by the Defendant respectively.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of the first instance court against the plaintiff (appointed party) on October 1, 2010 is revoked. The part of the disposition of the first instance court against OOOOOOOOOO, the selected party's first instance judgment against the plaintiff (appointed party including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the disposition of the first instance court of the inheritance tax against OOOOOOOOO, the designated party's first instance judgment against OOOOOOOO, and the portion of the disposition of the first instance court of the inheritance tax imposed against OOOOOOO, Kim DD, among the disposition of the first instance court of the inheritance tax imposed against OOOOOOO and Kim F.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition or modification of the corresponding parts of the judgment of the first instance as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 below.

2.On the third page, the following descriptions shall be added to:

On the other hand, as the objection raised by the plaintiff et al. and the appeal filed by the plaintiff et al. are partially accepted, Park GG is excluded from the inheritance tax obligor, and the inheritance shares of the plaintiff et al. were modified as stated in the second attached Table [the amount of tax deducted by inheritor], and 3. 6. 16. Amendment as follows:

(3) The plaintiff (designated party, hereinafter "the plaintiff) asserts that even if the deposit for lease of the real estate in HHdong real estate, II real estate, and JJF is not owned by the plaintiff or KimF, the total amount of the deposit for lease should be deducted from the value of the inherited property because it constitutes the obligation of KimK, which is the decedent, even though the deposit for lease of the real estate in HHdong real estate is not owned by the plaintiff or KimF.", each of the records in HHdong real estate and II real estate, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the sum of the deposit for lease deposit to be returned by KimK to the tenant of HHdong real estate is the aggregate of the deposit for lease deposit for lease of the real estate in HHdong real estate. On the other hand, the plaintiff's objection raised by the plaintiff et al. (2010.684) as part of the first paragraph (c) above, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion about the deposit for lease of the real estate in II real estate has already been returned from the value of the inherited property.

In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as to the obligation to return the lease deposit of J-dong real estate, Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, 23 (including paper numbers) is recognized as having been liable for the repayment of the deposit money of the OOOOO in the J-dong real estate and the obligation to return the deposit money of the 1/2 of the above deposit money of the OOOOOO in the J-dong real estate constitutes the obligation of the deceased.

Therefore, if the value of the inherited property is deducted from the amount of the inherited property, it shall be deducted from the amount of the final tax at the time of the disposal of this case, such as the first sheet (total amount of the tax reduced) in the attached Form. Accordingly, each inheritance tax amount taking into account the inheritance shares and the amount of the aggregate taxation on donation in advance shall be deducted from the amount of the inherited property. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be the plaintiff, the OOB, the OOB, the POB, the POE, the KimD, and the OOE, Kim FF, the OOB, the OE, KimD, and the 4th conclusion.

Therefore, since the part exceeding the inheritance tax amount recognized above among the disposition of this case is unlawful, the claim of the plaintiff and the designated parties is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, and it is so revised as per Disposition by the court of first instance.