The method of writing and delivering tax notice to co-inheritorss;

In the notice of tax payment, without stating the amount to be borne by the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors and the details of calculation thereof, the taxpayer is identified only as each plaintiff, and the total amount of inheritance tax imposed on the plaintiffs and the grounds for calculation thereof are stated and notified only. The instant disposition was notified to each co-inheritors, but all of the defects in the method of imposing and notifying

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

1. On July 16, 2008, the part that exceeds KRW 6,523,340 of the disposition imposing KRW 61,723,340 of inheritance tax belonging to the year 1998 by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be remanded to the defendant.

The order is the same as the order (the written complaint on July 21, 2008 is the 16th term of July 16, 2008).

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The plaintiffs' status: the co-inheritors of the deceased AA (the deceased on October 14, 1998, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased").

B. The plaintiffs' declaration of the taxable value and tax base of their inheritance ( April 13, 1999)

(1) Value and tax base, etc. of inheritance tax;

The value of inherited property shall be KRW 965,014,50, KRW 960,014,50, the taxable value of inherited property shall be KRW 460,014,50, the tax base shall be KRW 460,014,50, and the amount of the voluntary tax payable shall be KRW 73,802,610, out of the amount of the voluntary tax payable.

(2) Application for payment by annual installments (hereinafter referred to as “application for payment by annual installments”)

The defendant applied for the payment of 18,400,000 won for the remaining voluntary tax payment amounting to 5,200,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the unpaid tax amount in this case") in three installments for three years, but the defendant did not make a decision on whether to permit payment in annual installments.

C. The defendant's decision and notification of inheritance tax (the disposition of this case on July 16, 2008; hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") against the plaintiffs

(1) Determination and notification of inheritance tax

After investigating the inheritance tax on the plaintiffs around May 2008, the defendant shall determine the tax base as KRW 2,510,00 by adding the amount of tax base to the value of inherited property pursuant to Article 76 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), regardless of whether it was before or after the amendment, to KRW 462,540,00, total amount of tax determined as KRW 80,325,954, total amount of tax determined as KRW 80,325,954, total amount of tax determined as KRW 61,723,344 (= total amount of tax determined as KRW 18,602,610), and to the plaintiffs, KRW 61,723,340,340; and

(2) Method of duty payment notice

A notice of tax payment stating only the total amount of inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiffs and the basis for the calculation thereof, without stating the respective tax amount to be borne by the Plaintiffs as co-inheritors and the details of calculation thereof, shall be served by sending a notice of tax payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case (the part concerning the unpaid tax payment) is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) It is unlawful as a taxation disposition after the extinctive prescription has expired.

(A) As from the date of application of this case ( April 13, 1999), the Defendant did not make a decision and notification on whether to grant permission for annual payment within six months, which is the statutory tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax, from the date of application of this case (the date of April 13, 1999), it is deemed that there was a decision on the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax, along with the permission for annual payment on October 13, 1998, pursuant to Articles 71(2) and 76(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (1),

(B) From October 13, 2002 to October 13, 2002, when the period of annual payment from October 13, 1998, which was the week between the above inheritance tax decision, expired, the duty to pay the unpaid tax amount of October 13, 2007, which was five years after the statute of limitations for the collection of national taxes.

(C) Nevertheless, since the Defendant issued the instant disposition, including the unpaid tax amount of this case, the extinctive prescription of which has expired, the part of the unpaid tax amount of this case excluding KRW 6,523,340 (= KRW 61,723,340), u u u 3005,200,000) is unlawful.

(2) The Defendant, without stating the amount to be borne by co-inheritors and the particulars of calculation, stated only the total amount of inheritance tax and the basis of calculation thereof, was against Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act and was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) On the first note:

(A) Time of completion of inheritance tax statute

According to Article 27 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) and Article 12-4(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases of items of taxation determined, corrected or occasionally imposed by the Government, such as inheritance tax, the State’s right to collect national taxes shall expire if it is not exercised for five years from the day following the due date for payment by a duty payment notice. Therefore, the State’s right to collect the unpaid amount of tax of this case shall not run for the period in which the duty to pay inheritance tax is not determined.

(b) Procedures for determining the duty to pay inheritance tax

O Method of Taxation

The taxable value and tax base of the inheritance shall be returned to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment within six months from the date of commencing the inheritance, and the liability to pay the inheritance tax shall be determined by determining the tax base and tax amount based on the return within six months from the date of receiving the said return.

Provided, That where no return is filed or there is an omission or error in the reported tax base or tax amount, the duty to pay taxes shall be determined by investigating the tax base and tax amount.

O-founded provisions: Articles 67(1), 76(1) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(C) Procedure for granting permission for application for payment by annual installments

O Decision and deemed Procedures

Where the amount of tax payable exceeds 10 million won, a person liable to pay inheritance tax may file an application for annual installment payment with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment along with the return of the tax base of inheritance tax, and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may

The head of the competent tax office shall decide and notify the applicant of whether to grant permission when he/she notifies the taxpayer of the tax base of inheritance tax and the amount of tax. In such cases, if he/she fails to decide and notify whether to grant permission for annual payment by six months after the date of the report, it shall be deemed that permission for annual payment has been granted.

(O) Basic Provisions: Article 71(1), (2), and (5) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 67(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(D) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, even if permission for annual payment was granted on October 13, 1998 from the date of the application of this case to October 13, 1998, pursuant to the latter part of Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, it cannot be deemed that there was a decision on the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax. Therefore, the plaintiffs'

O The inheritance tax liability is determined through the determination of the tax base and amount of the inheritance tax by the head of the competent tax office on the basis of the person liable for payment's return. However, the defendant has not determined the tax base and amount of the tax of this case before July 16, 2008.

Although the period of permission for payment by annual installments is set at 6 months in the Inheritance Tax Act, even if the period has elapsed without decision, it is not stipulated that the inheritance tax base and tax amount are fixed according to the details reported by the taxpayer on the expiration date of the statutory decision period.

In the Inheritance Tax Act, the head of the competent tax office can allow payment by annual installments within three years from the date of determination and notification of the tax base and tax amount, and even if the above deemed provision does not stipulate that payment by annual installments is permitted in the event that payment by annual installments is not determined and notified within six months from the date of notification of the tax base and tax amount, it cannot be deemed that there was an inheritance tax disposition at the time of permission for payment by annual installments, solely on the above deemed provision without determination of tax base

The purpose of the provision regarding permission for payment by annual installments is that the head of the competent tax office does not grant permission for payment by annual installments, even though he/she did not make a separate decision on permission for payment by annual installments, even if he/she did not make a separate decision on permission for payment by annual installments.

Pursuant to Article 26-2(1)4 main sentence and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax authority is only subject to the limitation of the exclusion period of inheritance tax for 10 years from the filing deadline and the filing deadline of a return on the tax base and amount of inheritance tax, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case was made within 10 years from the filing deadline of the tax base and amount of tax ( April 13, 199) of the tax base and amount of tax with respect to the amount unpaid in this case

(2) Judgment on the second argument

(A) Legal principles (Inheritance Tax Procedures)

The Inheritance Tax Act provides that an inheritor is liable to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of each inherited property received or to be received by each inheritor. Thus, a duty payment notice having the effect of specifically determining each co-inheritors’s tax liability is unlawful to distinguish and specify the amount of tax to be paid individually by co-inheritors, and to state or attach the grounds for calculation and the details of calculation, and to impose inheritance tax en bloc on the inheritor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu10316, Dec. 21, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu387, May 27, 1993).

(B) Determination

The defendant did not state the amount to be borne by the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors and state the amount to be borne by them and the calculation basis thereof as each plaintiff, and notified only the total amount of inheritance tax imposed on the plaintiffs and the calculation basis thereof. Thus, the disposition of this case was wholly unlawful due to defects in the method of imposition and notification even though it was notified to each co-inheritors (the defendant argued that at the time of the disposition of this case, the plaintiffs were classified and specified as the amount to be individually paid to each co-inheritors, and that the grounds for calculation and calculation are stated or attached to them

(3) Sub-determination. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

3.In conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims for this case are reasonable and acceptable.