Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu2400 delivered on October 23, 1998

Even if the address of the deceased was mistakenly stated, the disposition of imposition violating jurisdiction is illegal.

Whether it is against the good faith principle to dispute the violation of jurisdiction after a taxpayer who entered the address of the inheritee differently from the real domicile of the inheritee is subject to protection of trust in relation to the jurisdiction in cases where the tax authority depends only on the taxpayer's report without confirming the domicile of the inheritee.

Article 9 (Place of Tax Payment)

Article 12 (Taxation Jurisdiction of Corporate Tax)

According to Article 1 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996), the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance (Article 98 of the Civil Act), and the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee. Meanwhile, pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax base return shall be submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax at the time of the report. If the tax office has mistakenly filed the tax base return, it shall be submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax, and if it is known that it is not under his jurisdiction after receiving it, it shall be promptly sent to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax office other than the head of tax office of the inheritee.

In order to apply the principle of good faith to the taxpayer, there is an objective contradictory behavior, the behavior was caused by the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority caused thereby should be worth being protected. In light of the fact that the head of the tax office who has not jurisdiction upon receiving the inheritance tax report should investigate his jurisdiction and take measures accordingly, it cannot be said that the tax authority reported the tax office that did not perform the duty of investigation, and that the taxpayer, whose domicile is different from the real domicile of the decedent, did not have done a serious good faith by proving that the taxpayer did not know the violation of the disposition of imposition of the inheritance tax after the disposition of imposition of the inheritance tax, and it cannot be said that the tax office believed that the taxpayer had jurisdiction only by confirming the domicile of the decedent by the certified copy of the resident registration, etc. and believed that there is no trust that the trust in its jurisdiction is worth being protected.

Articles 1 and 20(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; see Article 67(2) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); Article 1(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996; see Articles 67(1) and 13(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Article 64(2) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); Article 98 of the Civil Act; Article 43 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 24 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; see Article 67(2) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); Article 1, and Article 20(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13165, Dec. 13, 19, 1968)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu127 Decided September 14, 1982 (Gong1982, 952) and Supreme Court Decision 83Nu300 Decided September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1617) Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu18383 Decided March 20, 197 (Gong197Sang, 105)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu2400 delivered on October 23, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 1 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996), the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance. Since inheritance begins at the place of the inheritee’s domicile (Article 98 of the Civil Act), the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee. Meanwhile, pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax base return shall be submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax at the time of the report, and if the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall submit the return without delay if it is known that it is not under his jurisdiction after the receipt of the return, it shall not be within the jurisdiction of the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office.

In addition, in order to apply the principle of good faith to taxpayers, there is an objectively contradictory behavior, the behavior was derived from the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority resulting therefrom should be worthy of protection (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu18383, Mar. 20, 1997). In light of the above, upon receiving an inheritance tax report as seen earlier, the head of a tax office who has not jurisdiction but has no jurisdiction shall investigate the jurisdiction and take measures accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority reported the inheritance tax to the taxpayer who did not fulfill the duty of investigation, and that the taxpayer, whose domicile is different from the real domicile of the decedent, later later than the disposition of inheritance tax imposition, did not have committed a serious act of worship, and it cannot be said that the tax authority believed that the taxpayer had jurisdiction only by confirming the decedent's domicile through the certified copy of the resident registration card, etc. and believed that the taxpayer had no jurisdiction, and thus, it cannot be said that there is trust worth protecting the taxpayer's trust in its jurisdiction.

In the same purport, even if the plaintiffs, who are the taxpayers of inheritance tax of this case, entered the domicile of the deceased in the place other than the real domicile at the time of the inheritance tax return, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case issued by the defendant was unlawful as long as the head of the competent tax office did not have jurisdiction over the inheritance tax, and that the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' violation of the principle of good faith is violated. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.