Seoul High Court Decision 2017Seoul High Court Decision 20163 ( October 15, 2016)

Since it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the joint apartment acquisition fund was donated in advance, the defendant's legitimate disposition of inheritance tax.

The Plaintiff’s mother is the deceased, who is the source of the acquisition fund of the instant apartment ownership in the name of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have donated the acquisition fund of this case from the deceased without compensation, the Defendant’s inheritance tax disposition is lawful.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Guhap6075 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

April 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition on the Plaintiff on August 5, 2017 is revoked by the Plaintiff at an inheritance-related class, an inheritance-related class, an income-based class, and an income-based class.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 12, 201, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother, entered into a contract to jointly purchase ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) on a parcel of land, other than ○○○○, Nowon-gu, Seoul, and 1 XX 1,506 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 1,200,00,00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 201 with respect to each of the instant apartment units on the grounds of the said sale.

나. 망인이 2015. 2. 14. 사망하자, 공동상속인인 원고와 원고의 동생 이○○은 상속세 과세가액을 XXXXXXX원으로 하여 상속세 XXXXXXXX원을 신고ㆍ납부하였다.

다. 피고는 원고가 이 사건 아파트 1/2 지분을 망인으로부터 증여받은 것으로 보아, 기존에 신고된 상속세 과세가액에 위 지분의 취득자금 X억 원(이하 '이 사건 취득자금'이라 한다)과 그 밖에 확인된 사전증여재산 XXXXXX원, 누락ㆍ과소신고한 상속재산가액 XXXXXX원을 더하여 상속세 과세가액을 XXXXXXX원으로 결정하고, 2016. 8. 5. 원고에게 상속세 XXXXXXX원(가산세 포함)을 결정ㆍ고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다).

D. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 23, 2017, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 15, 2017.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 4-6, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

망인은 남편 이○○의 병원비와 그 소유 건물의 수리비 등으로 지인들에게 융통하여 부담하고 있던 채무를 변제하기 위하여 2003년 및 2004년에 합계 7000만 원을 대출받았는데, 위 대출금의 이자를 원고의 남편 최○○이 지급하다가 원고가 2006. 4. 12. 망인의 위 대출 원리금과 중도해약금 XX만 원을 대위 상환하였고, 위 대위 상환금에 대한 이 사건 아파트 취득일까지의 인정이자는 약 XXXX만 원(2008년까지는 연 9%, 그 이후는 연 8.5%를 적용한 금액)이다. 또한 원고가 망인과 합가하여 이 사건 아파트 취득일까지 함께 거주하며 봉양한 대가와 생활비 부담액은 최저생계비인 월 XX만 원을 기준으로 계산하여도 약 XXXX만 원에 이른다. 이는 모두 원고가 취득한 이 사건 아파트 지분에 대한 대가로 보아야 하므로, 이 사건 아파트 지분을 증여받은 것으로 본 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) 망인은 그 소유인 서울 ○○구 ○○동 XXX-14 주택(이하 '○○동 주택'이라 한다)을 담보로 농업협동조합중앙회로부터 2003. 12. 29. XXXX만 원, 2004. 9. 23. XXXX만 원의 대출(이하 통칭하여 '이 사건 대출'이라 한다)을 받았다. 이 사건 대출금은 대출계좌(0xX-XX-0XXXX, 0XX-XX-XXXXXX)에서 망인의 다른 계좌(0XX-XX-XXXXX)로 대체 출금되었다가 2003. 12. 29. XXXX만 원, 2004. 9. 23. XXXX만 원, 2004. 10. 6. XXXXXXX원이 다시 각 대체 출금되었다. 2004. 9.경 ○○동 주택의 담보가치는 X억 원을 초과하는 것으로 평가되었다.

2) 2006. 4. 12. 원고의 아들 최○○으로부터 XXXXXXXX원이 원고의 남편 최○○(2006. 1. 3. 사망)의 농협은행 예금계좌(3XXXXX-X2-XXXXX)에 입금되어 같은 날 그 중 XXXXXX원이 대체 출금되었고, 이 사건 대출금과 잔존이자 합계 XXXXXXX원이 모두 같은 날 변제되었으며, 그 전까지 이 사건 대출금에 대한 이자는 매달 당시 원고의 주소지 인근의 강릉원예농협 ○○지점을 통해 납부되었다. 이 사건 대출금에 대한 이자총액은 XXXXXX원이다.

3) 최○○은 2003. 1. 26. 의류점(○○업 강릉점)을 개업하였고, 최○○ 사망 후 최○○이 위 의류점을 운영하다가 2006. 4. 12. 폐업하였다. 위 의류점의 2003년 제1기부터 2005년 제2기까지 각 과세기간의 부가가치세 과세표준 신고내역은 약 XXX만 원에서 XXXX만 원 사이이고, 매입내역은 XXXX만 원에서 XXX만 원 사이이다.

4) ○○동 주택 1층에는 2000. 5.경부터 2세대의 임차인들이 거주하였다. 망인의 농협은행 계좌(0xX-XX-0XXXX)에는 임차인 박○○이 2003. 9.부터 2004. 1.까지 매월 XX~XX만 원, 임차인 김○○이 2008. 4.부터 2010. 6.까지 매월 약 XX만 원, 임차인 김○○이 2010. 2.부터 2011. 11.까지 매월 XX~XX만 원을 입금하였고, 2009. 6. 25. 예금만기이자 XXXXX원, 2011. 7. 4. 예금만기해지금 XXXXX원이 입금되었으며, 그 외에도 수시로 현금 및 수표가 입금되거나 전기ㆍ수도ㆍ가스ㆍ신문요금 및 재산세 등이 출금되었다.

5) 망인은 남편 이○○이 2001. 4. 6. 사망한 이후에도 계속하여 ○○동 주택 2층에 거주하다가, 2011. 10. 12. 공릉동 주택을 XX억 XXXX만 원에 매도하고 2011. 11. 30. 잔금을 수령한 후 2011. 12. 5. 이 사건 아파트를 취득하였다. 원고는 최○○과 함께 강릉시에 거주하다가 최○○이 사망한 후 2006. 4. 28. ○○동 주택으로 전입하였고, 2011. 9. 16. 다시 강릉시로 전출하였다가 2012. 4. 19. 이 사건 아파트에 전입하였다.

6) The details of the property reported by the Plaintiff, ○○, etc. as donated from the Deceased or confirmed as donated as a result of the Defendant’s investigation are as follows.

(unit: million won)

Testamentary donee

Relation

Date of donation;

Type of property

Reporting

Investigation

A.

May 17, 2007

Land:

XX

XX

January 3, 2012

Cash

XX

XX

December 5, 2011

The apartment 1/2 shares in the instant apartment

XX

○ ○

A.

November 30, 2011

Cash

XX

XX

○ ○

the Corporation.

November 30, 2011

Cash

XX

XX

○ ○

the Corporation.

November 30, 2011

Cash

XX

XX

○ ○

the Corporation.

January 3, 2012

Cash

XX

XX

○ ○

Ministry of Gender Equality

November 30, 2011

Cash

XX

Total

XX 2 XX

XX 6 XX

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-5, 7-10, Eul evidence 1-3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax may not be readily concluded to be an illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirement unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts at issue were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule, unless it is proven in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998; 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

The fact that the source of the instant acquisition fund against the Plaintiff’s share in the apartment under the name of the Plaintiff is the deceased is without dispute between the parties. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have received a donation of the instant acquisition fund from the deceased without compensation. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition, including the taxable value of inherited property, is lawful.

1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had settled a separate obligation and obligation between the Deceased with respect to the receipt of the instant acquisition fund, or paid a reasonable price therefor, is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A) In light of the above facts, it appears that the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s interest on the instant loan and the remaining interest were repaid with the money deposited on April 12, 2006 from the deposit account of the deceased’s husband’s ○○○○. In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it appears that the interest on the instant loan from the time of the instant loan to the above repayment date would have been paid from the maximum ○○ account every month. As such, the Plaintiff and ○○○, who had been living separately with the deceased, paid the interest on the instant loan and interest accrued over two occasions from the time of each loan to the time of the closure of the business operated directly at nine months. The Plaintiff’s interest on the instant loan and interest accrued over the first time under the name of the deceased, reasonably confirmed that the instant loan and interest actually belonged to the Plaintiff and ○○○○. Moreover, if the Plaintiff repaid the instant loan on behalf of the deceased, there is no room for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest on May 207 following the instant loan.

B) Next, we examine whether the instant acquisition fund included the cost of supporting the deceased by the date of acquisition of the instant real estate after the Plaintiff’s combination with the deceased.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid living expenses of 00,000 won or more per month for the deceased, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Furthermore, even after the Plaintiff transferred to ○○dong on April 28, 2006, the electricity, water, gas, and newspaper charges were paid out from the deceased’s account, the deceased owned the ○○-dong Housing with a considerable property value, the deceased was old, and there were separate deposits to the deceased, and the lease income was also deemed to have existed, and the Plaintiff could not separately spend the living expenses while living together with the deceased, ○○-dong Housing, the ownership of the deceased, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have paid part of the living expenses. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the deceased and the Plaintiff on the settlement of the living expenses paid by the Plaintiff for the deceased from the acquisition fund of this case.

2) 오히려 망인이 ○○동 주택 매도대금으로 아들인 이○○ 부부에게 현금으로 X억 XXXX만 원, 손주들에게 각 XXXX만 원을 증여하였는데, 그 무렵까지 수년간 망인과 동거한 원고가 공릉동 주택 매도 후 증여받은 것은 이 사건 아파트를 제외하면 현금 XXXX만 원에 불과한 점에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 취득자금은 망인이 무상으로 원고에게 증여한 것으로 봄이 타당하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.