There is no evidence to prove that it was used as educational expenses, and only because it was withdrawn, it cannot be recognized as a monetary loan for consumption.

Although the decedent is under duty to support the grandchild, there is no evidence to prove that he/she was used as educational expenses, and only because he/she was withdrawn, it cannot be recognized as a monetary loan for consumption.

2017Guhap6907 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

Maap○

○ Head of tax office

on 01. 06 01

on October 018, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In August 1, 2016, the inheritance tax amounting to KRW 26,250,950 (including additional tax) that the defendant of the Gu office was to pay to the plaintiff on August 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the inheritor of leap○○○ (hereinafter “the decedent”) (hereinafter “the decedent”), filed a return of inheritance tax (the taxable value of the inherited property is KRW 1,806,809,09,094, 607,443,572, and the payable tax amount is KRW 287,71,588, etc.) with the Defendant.

B. The Defendant, on August 1, 2016, deemed that the decedent’s total amount of KRW 47.7 million transferred to the Plaintiff before the decedent’s death as follows, deemed that the decedent was a prior donation to the Plaintiff, and imposed KRW 26,250,950 (including additional taxes) on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The amount of No. 1 and No. 2 was sent to the decedent’s study expenses for Blue Blue, a decedent, because the Plaintiff’s economic difficulty in supporting his/her children, and the amount of No. 3 was received from the decedent’s funeral expenses that the Plaintiff settled by Park ○○, which he/she had been paid, and the amount of No. 4 was used to purchase a heavy vehicle for the relocation of the decedent’s hospital, but was repaid to the decedent on December 17, 2014. Therefore, it is unreasonable to add the above No. 1

B. Determination

1) As to the Nos. 1 and 2

A) In order to constitute educational expenses exempt from inheritance tax and gift tax under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it should be 'educational expenses' of a dependent who is recognized by social norms (Article 46 subparag. 5 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015). In other words, a donor's obligation to support a donee should be recognized, and the donated amount should be an educational expenses. (B) Since a lineal blood relative is not required to share a livelihood and has a duty to support himself/herself (Article 974 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Civil Act), it is recognized that the Defendant has a duty to support a decedent's lelebbal of the decedent (the Defendant is not able to accept the claim that the Plaintiff and Park ○○, the parent of the inheritee, and that the obligation to support lebbal of the decedent is not acceptable).

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff’s overseas remittance from around 2013 to 2015 and the fact that the Plaintiff was studying in Japan around that time is recognized. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of Nos. 1 and 2 was used as the education expenses of Bule Bule. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to deem that the amount Nos. 1 and 2 was the education expenses of Buleban. 3 and 4 merely based on the above facts alone. No. 1 and 2 cannot be accepted.

A) According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9, the Plaintiff’s Mad○○ died on January 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s Mad○○○○○○○○ was paying KRW 14,210,650 with a credit card at the funeral hall, etc. on January 16, 2014. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the amount Nos. 3 was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account and was delivered to Mad○○ at that time. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount Nos. 3 is insufficient solely based on the above facts.

B) According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 10, the Plaintiff acquired a vehicle of 'Javis-turdy' on July 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million from its account on December 17, 2014.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff borrowed the amount of No. 4 from the inheritee or delivered the amount of KRW 20 million deposited as above to the inheritee. Therefore, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff repaid the amount of No. 4 from the inheritee after borrowing the amount of money from the inheritee. The Plaintiff’s assertion related to the amount No. 4 cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.