Daejeon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-101067 ( December 08, 2016)

Whether the disposition imposing inheritance tax of this case is unlawful

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of inheritance tax was illegal because they had different knowledge about the inheritance of this case, the disposition of this case in which the plaintiffs had succeeded to it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal.

Articles 1, 3, and 28 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Daejeon High Court-2016-Nu-13654

00 et al.

00. Head of tax office

on October 13, 2017

on October 11, 2017

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case are written by the court below as follows.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, civil procedure, because the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.

The reference shall be made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Act.

on the 4th page "135,070,352 won" shall be read as "135,070,350 won".

○ Up to 12, 12, 7, 17 are as follows.

“2) Whether the imposition of penalty tax is illegal or not.

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the exercise of taxation rights.

Where a taxpayer violates all kinds of obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, provided for in the Act without justifiable grounds;

administrative sanctions imposed under this subsection, which is expected to be performed by the person liable for tax payment;

If there is an unreasonable reason to believe that the failure to perform the duty is not caused, or there is a justifiable reason to believe that it is not attributable to the duty.

(2) The court below's decision that the court below's decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the court below's decision was justifiable.

(see, e.g., the inheritor’s existence of property such as real property at the time of the inheritee’s death.

The fact that the heir was unaware of his/her failure to perform his/her duties is not sufficient to prove that he/she was responsible.

The Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10289 Decided February 12, 2009 can not be deemed to have a reason (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10289 Decided February 12

1) The phrase “135,070,352 won” as stated in the written complaint of this case is obvious that it is a clerical error.

See Decision 20

In light of the above legal principles, the health class, Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the instant case

According to the intent of the AA around October 2004, AA divorced from BB, the mother of the plaintiffs around October 2004.

The fact that they were in Korea with BB, and AA may die on February 22, 2006, all years after the death of 2006

CCC’s office, a father, without recognizing the Plaintiffs as their children and having them up to what is reasonable;

The fact that the plaintiffs did not come to and depart from the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs subsequently filed a death suit of the AA.

Facts known to them are recognized, however, each of the evidence mentioned above and Gap evidence 6, 14

(1) The Plaintiffs, in other words, shall be deemed to have been aware of the overall purport of the pleading.

without disclosing the correct time known to the public, asserting that the person was later aware of the death;

(2) After the death of the AA, the Plaintiffs are entitled to any property of the AA from the early CCC.

for instance, 103,375,000 won was received, and at least from this time, AA was aware of the death.

in other words, it does not clearly state the time when the money was received;

③ After becoming aware of the death of AA, the Plaintiffs shall conduct an inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiffs by the Defendant.

bank, etc. in the name of AA within two years prior to the commencement of the inheritance even until May 2008 to the defendant.

Amount of bank withdrawal from the account of a financial institution to KRW 1.4 billion where the source of such withdrawal is unclear;

(4) The plaintiffs who are successors of AA have not filed a report on inheritance tax.

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Future and Confidentiality Act, a gold that is an inherited property of the inheritee;

Since it is possible to make a universal inquiry about convergence property, the transaction of money withdrawn from the account of AA, which is the transaction thereof.

It appears that the plaintiffs could have known the existence of the absence of proof, and 5 the plaintiffs

The duty to report on the failure to verify whether the withdrawn funds of financial institutions, such as the conduct, are donated property;

In full view of the facts that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed exempted, the facts acknowledged earlier alone are alone.

(a) It is not deemed that there are justifiable grounds for neglecting the obligation to return and pay inheritance tax.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.