Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Mailing, Attorneys Song-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

port of origin

March 26, 2014

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1052 Decided May 1, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke all the imposition of KRW 14,61,423,170 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) of inheritance tax on December 3, 2010.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows: (a) the dismissal of the first instance court's ruling or the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments in the following paragraphs is identical to the ground of the first instance court's ruling; and (b) thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

○ 2 The phrase “instant land” refers to “each of the instant land,” which will be eightth below the two pages.

Then, the phrase “the amount of compensation has been set” to be “the amount of compensation has been set” (it is difficult to deem that the price formation factor is significantly superior to each land of this case even according to the fact inquiry with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the head of Gwangjin-gu.”

2. Additional determination

A. Determination as to the assertion on market price of each land of this case

First, the plaintiffs should recognize the amount of KRW 3.2 billion, which is the sales price of April 26, 2008, concluded between the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, as the market price prior to the commencement date of inheritance. Even if not, since the sales contract of April 26, 2008, which was concluded on April 26, 200 to be responsible for the settlement of provisional registration and seizure, the purchaser agreed to be responsible for the provisional registration and seizure, the above sales price of KRW 3.2 billion, plus KRW 1,834,793,170, which is the amount of debt related to provisional registration and seizure, should be recognized as the market price. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the amount of KRW 5,034,793,170, which is the sales price of August 9, 2005, which was concluded between the

Article 60(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the pertinent property shall be based on the “market price” as of the evaluation base date. The term “market price” in this context refers to the value that is generally established when a transaction takes place freely between many and unspecified persons, i.e., an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, and falls under the “transaction price if there is a fact of sale and purchase of the relevant property” under Article 49(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, and it does not change with the fact that the sales contract was rescinded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du5574, Aug. 23, 2007; 2010Du27936, Jul. 12, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, whether the plaintiffs can be deemed as the market price under Article 60(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. As seen earlier, the sales contract concluded between the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 on April 26, 2008 is to resolve only the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on each of the land of this case, and the remaining provisional registration and seizure are to be resolved by the purchaser, and it is recognized that the sales amount was KRW 3.2 billion. However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is insufficient to recognize that the provisional registration and seizure-related debt amount amount amount amount amount exceeded KRW 1,834,793,170, and it is difficult to view that the purchase price of each of the land of this case was calculated as the sale price of each of the non-party 1,000,000 won, including the real value of each of the land of this case, and it is difficult to view that the sale price of each of the land of this case was calculated as the non-party 2.

B. Judgment on the assertion of violation of the principle of good faith

Next, in light of the fact that the Defendant rendered a decision imposing inheritance tax on the basis of the sales value of each land of this case, and that if the inheritance tax was imposed on the basis of the officially announced value of land of this case from the beginning, the Plaintiffs, who fall short of cash, were able to completely pay the inheritance tax in kind, but have trusted the Defendant’s decision on the initial payment in kind, and that such opportunity has been lost, it is argued that the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the basis

According to Article 76(1) and (4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, when the head of a tax office, etc. finds any omission or error in the reported tax base and amount of tax after determining the tax base and amount of tax by filing a return, he/she shall investigate the tax base and amount of tax and correct it. This is a natural provision in light of the ideology of fair taxation or the nature of the State’s taxation right. The correction disposition by the tax authority under this provision is irrelevant to the payment of the existing tax amount, the omission of the tax amount, the cause of the error, etc., and does not constitute a violation of the principle of trust and good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10732, Jul. 28, 192). In this case, the defendant discovered omission or error in the details of inheritance tax return by the plaintiffs and corrected the tax base and amount of tax pursuant to the relevant provisions, and thus, the corrected disposition of this case cannot be deemed as

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

Justices Choi Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) Kim Tae-ho Kim Gyeong-hwan