Busan District Court 2015Guhap2346 ( August 25, 2016)

It is reasonable to deem that the deceased was liable for the deceased’s punishment at the time of his death.

(1) As with the judgment of the first instance court, it seems that the amount equivalent to 2/3 of the borrowed money appears to have been used for hospital expenses, nursing expenses, etc., and the remainder 1/3 of the borrowed money was used for hospital expenses, etc., and since the Plaintiff settled the inherited property by selling it, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased was liable to the deceased’s siblings at the time of his death.

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it accepts it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the defendant repeats in the court of first instance the arguments to the same purport as that of the court of first instance, and even if the defendant examines the arguments partially supplemented in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified). If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as the conclusion,

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Public Charges, etc. Deducted from Value of Inherited Property)