National Tax Service Review Inheritance 1998-0240 ( November 06, 98)

Since a tax notice cannot be deemed to have a reason to serve by public notice, it shall be null and void.

It is invalid because the address at the time of service of tax notice was sent to a wrong address and served by public notice, although it was easily possible to confirm it by means of a resident registration abstract, etc., and that there was no reason to serve by public notice.

2011Guhap2564 Nullification of a disposition of imposition of inheritance tax

New AA five persons

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

July 19, 2012

September 6, 2012

1. The respective ancillary claims of the plaintiffs NewlyB, NewCC, NewE, E, and NewF in the instant action shall be dismissed.

2. On July 1, 1998, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax against Plaintiff PriorA is null and void.

3. Each primary claim of the Plaintiff NewB, NewCC, NewD, E, and NewF shall be dismissed.

4 Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff PriorA and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff NewB, NewCC, NewD, E, and NewF and the Defendant are borne by the said Plaintiffs.

The primary claim is to confirm that the disposition of KRW 00 of each inheritance tax is invalid on July 1, 1998 against the plaintiff NewB, NewCC, New ED, and New E, and NewF.

Preliminary purport of claim is revoked on July 1, 1998 by the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of each inheritance tax against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 1994, LH had children under the sleep II (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and the Plaintiffs (the 2 South and North 5 women, and the her householder as the son and the son are the Plaintiff NewB) and died on January 1, 1994, and inherited property left one parcel, 000 00 m28 m288 m2,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000).

B. On May 28, 1998, the deceased and the plaintiffs, co-inheritors of the Do newH, did not report inheritance tax on the above inherited property, and the defendant appointed the deceased as the successor representative under Article 12 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15968, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) and notified the deceased as the successor representative under Article 12 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "designation of the representative of the heir in this case"), and on July 1, 1998, imposed KRW 00 of each inheritance tax on the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "disposition imposing inheritance tax in this case").", "No dispute exists", "No evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 5 (including the number No. 2, and hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs, due to conflict with the deceased, become aware of the imposition of the inheritance tax of this case only by finding a notice of the imposition of the inheritance tax of this case around February 201 when they were living without coming from all and collected with the deceased's death, and by finding out the notification of the imposition of the inheritance tax of this case. However, the designation of the representative of the heir of this case is invalid because it does not meet the requirements of Article 24 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 12 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if the notice of the imposition of the inheritance tax of this case is served on the deceased, it does not affect the plaintiffs (in addition, Article 12 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes requires each successor to notify the designation of the representative of the heir of this case, and the defendant does not notify the plaintiffs of the designation of the representative of this case.

B. Furthermore, the Defendant asserted that each notice of the instant disposition of the inheritance tax was served on the Plaintiffs, and that the relevant materials remain properly, and that all of them did not meet the requirements for service by public notice under Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the instant disposition of the inheritance tax against the Plaintiffs is all null and void.

C. In addition, in the notice of tax payment of the inheritance tax of this case, only the name of the heir and the total amount of the inheritance tax of this case are written, but not the remaining inheritors' names or in response to their respective successors' shares in inheritance and their respective shares in inheritance, and in this respect, the inheritance tax imposition of this case is null and void.

D. Therefore, to seek confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition of inheritance tax, and to seek revocation of the instant disposition of inheritance tax on a preliminary basis.

3. Validity of designation of the representative of the heir in this case.

(a) Article 8 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall stipulate that the heir shall report the tax base of the deceased and additional tax to the heir under the provisions of Article 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the heir shall report the tax base and additional tax amount to the heir under the provisions of Article 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the heir shall notify the heir or heir of the tax base and additional tax amount to the head of the tax office within the extent of 19 if the heir or heir were not entitled to tax payment under the provisions of Article 2 of the former Act, and that the heir or heir shall notify the heir or heir of the tax base and additional tax amount under the provisions of Article 25-1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, whichever are more than 2 of the former Enforcement Decree.

B. Based on Article 12(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s agent was designated as the representative of the deceased on May 28, 1998. In full view of the description of No. 3 and witness M’s testimony, the Defendant’s agent on the part of the Defendant, who was in charge of the instant disposition of inheritance, issued a notice to impose inheritance tax of this case to the deceased on July 13, 1998. However, there was no dispute between the parties that the deceased’s heir did not have the liability to pay inheritance tax of this case at the time of the deceased’s death, and the Defendant did not have any room to designate the representative among the deceased’s co-inheritors and the Plaintiffs, and thus, the designation of the representative of the heir of this case is null and void. Accordingly, even if the heir of this case was notified of the designation of the inheritance tax of this case pursuant to Article 12(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus, it cannot be seen that the inheritance tax disposition of this case was effective.

4. Validity of each service by public notice to the plaintiffs

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) After December 19, 198, the Plaintiff’s resident registration address was 00 OB, 00 OB, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 1997, changed on April 25, 199 to 00 OO apartment 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 o-dong, Seoul, 2000. However, as of July 1, 1998, UM, who is responsible for the Defendant’s side, sent the notice of the imposition of the inheritance tax of this case to Plaintiff 1, 2,00 OB, 3,000 oB, 1,000 oB, 1,000 OB, 1,000 OB, 1,000 OB, 3,000 OB, on the ground that it constitutes 9,000 OB, 197 O2,001.

3) The Plaintiff NewCC, NewDD, Prior E, and PriorF had left Korea to move to a foreign country before the deceased’s death and did not reside in Korea at and after the time of the deceased’s death (Plaintiff PriorCC on October 28, 1972; Plaintiff DaD on November 17, 1970; Plaintiff ShipE on June 12, 1979; Plaintiff DaF on June 17, 1990; and in particular, Plaintiff ShipF on its resident registration number on its certified copies, it was difficult to find the identity or location as well as the location on the deceased’s residence from the deceased, and it was difficult to find the identity or location of the above Plaintiffs on the ground that the above Plaintiffs were identified on the external affairs division, etc., and thus, it was hard to find the Plaintiffs’ identity or location on November 17, 1970, and that the service by public notice was provided to the Plaintiff 13 or 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 3 through 6, the witness M testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s address at the time of delivering the notice of the instant disposition of inheritance tax to the Plaintiff NewA is 000 OOO apartment 00 000 000 000 000 00 000 , and the Defendant, despite the fact that it could have been easily confirmed by the Plaintiff’s resident registration abstract, etc., sent the notice to the Plaintiff NewA and returned it to the 111 'Seoul Newcheon-dong 111 , which is an erroneous address, the Defendant, on July 23, 1998, did not appear to fall under the case where the above notice of tax payment was sent to the Plaintiff NewA on July 23, 1998, and it cannot be deemed to fall under the case where the address or business office of the Plaintiff NewA was unclear, and it cannot be deemed to fall under the case where the above notice of tax payment to the Plaintiff NewA was served to the Plaintiff, and the above service of tax payment to the Plaintiff New A, excluding the Plaintiff’s address or business office.

5. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary claims

A. Determination as to Plaintiff’s primary claim

In order to determine specific tax liability in the taxation method like the disposition of inheritance tax in this case, the tax payment notice is an effective requirement of the disposition, and the designation of the representative of the heir in this case is null and void as seen in paragraph (3) above. Thus, even if the notification of the disposition of inheritance tax in this case was made to the deceased after the designation of the representative of the heir in this case, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of inheritance tax in this case was effective against the plaintiff in this case. Furthermore, as seen in paragraph (4) above, the above disposition of tax in this case against the plaintiff in New O is null and void, and the above disposition of inheritance tax in this case against the plaintiff in this case is not effective as it is not itself.

(b) Determination on the primary claims of the Plaintiff PB, NewCC, NewD, E, and NewF

1) Since the designation of the representative of the heir in this case is null and void, even if the notification of the inheritance tax disposition in this case was made to the deceased after the notification of the designation of the representative of the heir in this case, it cannot be deemed that the validity of the disposition of the inheritance tax in this case was completed on the plaintiff NewB, NewCC, NewD, New E, and NewF. However, as seen in the above paragraph 4 above, the service of the above tax disposition in each of the above plaintiffs is valid, and the service of the above tax disposition in each of the above plaintiffs is all effective, and the above plaintiffs on August 3, 1998 after the lapse of 10 days from the date of the above service by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by private.

2) Furthermore, the above plaintiffs merely stated the name of the heir and the total amount of inheritance tax in the notice of tax imposition of the inheritance tax of this case, but did not state the remaining inheritors' names, inheritance shares by heir, and the amount of tax to be paid by each heir in response to their respective shares of inheritance. Thus, the disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case is null and void. Thus, in issuing a tax payment notice to co-inheritors, the above plaintiffs' disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case shall not only specify the amount of tax imposed by the co-inheritors who are liable to pay taxes but also by the taxpayer in accordance with Article 9 of the National Tax Number Act and Article 19 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act as well as by the gender of co-inheritors who are liable to pay taxes, but also specified the tax amount to be imposed in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance, and if there were errors in the calculation basis or calculation basis thereof or omission thereof, such taxation disposition is unlawful, but it cannot be deemed null and void as it does not necessarily constitute grounds for nullification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu545, etc.).

6. Determination as to the legitimacy of the conjunctive claims made by the Plaintiff NewB, NewCC, New ED, Prior E, and NewF in the instant lawsuit

The plaintiff NewB, NewCC, NewD, E, and NewF have sought revocation of the inheritance tax disposition of this case, and we examine whether the part of the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.

A. In full view of the provisions of the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 5(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if an administrative litigation is filed against a disposition of national taxes, it shall undergo the procedure of prior trial, such as a request for examination or adjudgment, as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and if such request for examination or adjudgment is filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date on which the notice of disposition is received) on which the person becomes aware of the disposition is known, and if a person other than the person who is notified of the disposition, files a request for examination or adjudgment by public notice or other means, it refers to the date on which the other party to the disposition or the person who is requested to file a request for examination or adjudgment, etc., "if the other party to the disposition files a request for examination or adjudgment, it shall be deemed unlawful for the first day of the request for examination or adjudgment (see Supreme Court Decision 90.

B. On August 3, 1998, each service by public notice of the above tax notice on the tax notice of the plaintiff PP, the plaintiff PP, the newCC, and the new F, was effective, and around August 3, 1998, the above plaintiffs can be deemed to have received the notice of the disposition of the inheritance tax of this case. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, the above plaintiffs filed a request with the Tax Tribunal about the disposition of the inheritance tax of this case on January 28, 201, but the Tax Tribunal rejected the above request on November 14, 201. The above plaintiffs' request for a trial was filed in excess of the deadline for request, and it is improper to deem that all the conjunctive claims of the above plaintiffs in the lawsuit of this case were subject to legitimate pre-trial procedure.

7. Conclusion

If so, the primary claim of the plaintiff PA is justified, the primary claim of the plaintiff PA is accepted, and the primary claim of the plaintiff, newB, newCC, newD, newE, and new F, is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition as to dismiss the primary claim of the plaintiff PA, and the primary claim of the plaintiff PB, newCC, newD, and E, and new F, are inappropriate.