Suwon District Court 2006Guhap3484 (2008.07.04)

National High Court Decision 2005Du3062 ( October 2006)

An estimated inherited property, the use of which is unclear, is deemed to have been inherited by the heir, and excluded by the testamentary donee.

According to the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, an unclear amount used as the property prior to the commencement of inheritance shall be deemed to have been inherited by the heir, and it shall be deemed that the heir and testamentary donee have inherited, and it shall be unreasonable to specify the total amount of inheritance tax to the heir and testamentary donee

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 3 (Inheritance Tax Payment Liability)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On December 15, 2004, the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 100,693,50 of the inheritance tax of KRW 2001, the inheritance tax of KRW 74,754,630 of the year 2001 against KRW 15,837,840 of the inheritance tax of KRW 2001 against KRW 15,837,840 of the inheritance tax of KRW 2001 against KRW 15,837,840 of the inheritance tax of KRW 201 against the Plaintiff Han Tae-do for the first time.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition to the last part of "2. Determination of legality of the disposition" in the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the third conclusion part).

2. The addition;

D. Judgment on the defendant's master and objection

(1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to pay the total determined tax amount relating to the instant disposition to the extent of the property donated and bequeathed pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the instant lawsuit does not dispute the total determined tax amount. Thus, the instant lawsuit does not have a benefit of lawsuit.

However, Article 3(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that an inheritor has a duty to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of the inherited property received or to be received by each person among inherited property. Therefore, a duty payment notice having the effect of specifically determining each person’s duty to pay tax on co-inheritors should be classified and specified for each co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4749, Mar. 25, 1997). Although the Plaintiff did not dispute the total amount of tax determined by inheritance, the lawsuit of this case cannot be said to have no benefit of lawsuit as it is disputing the amount of tax to be paid individually by himself/herself even if it does not dispute the total amount of tax determined by inheritance. Therefore, the above argument

(2) The defendant asserts that even if it is deemed that ○○, the inheritor, alone, inherited the amount of this case, the entire tax imposed on the plaintiffs among the tax amount imposed in the disposition of this case shall be revoked, and that it shall be revoked only for the portion exceeding the reasonable tax amount calculated.

In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs are arguing only the inheritance tax amount related to the property, the location of which is unclear, among the inheritance tax amount imposed on each of the Plaintiffs in the instant lawsuit, but there is not sufficient data to calculate the legitimate tax amount on each of the Plaintiffs on the record, and there is a need to calculate the tax amount again for each of the parties taking over the instant disposition due to the death of the Plaintiff Han-soo and Han-ju, and thus, the said assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted in its own reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.