Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Tong Tax Office

July 5, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,574,936,760 on October 2, 2010 against Plaintiff 4, against Plaintiff 3 on May of the same month, against Plaintiff 1 on June of the same month, and against Plaintiff 2 on July 14, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 20, 2006, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) sold the forest land of KRW 51,567 square meters at KRW 7,000,000,000,000 for the Scag Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sag Development”) on September 20, 206 and received the down payment of KRW 650,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the forest land in this case”) (hereinafter “the instant contract”).

B. On September 27, 2006, the Deceased did not receive 6.35 billion won for the remainder of the above sales contract, and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the forest of this case for the development of Chicago on September 27, 2006, and drafted a written agreement with the development of Scai and the non-party 2 on September 28, 2006 as follows:

5. Agreed matters.

(2) Of the remainder of KRW 6.35 billion payable to the Deceased in helicopters development, KRW 360 million shall be paid at the time of registration at the time of registration, and KRW 1.64 billion shall be paid up to December 20, 2006. However, in the event of non-party 2’s failure to pay, it shall be liable to the non-party 2.

(3) The remainder of the 4.35 billion won payable to the Deceased in helicopters development shall be paid not later than December 31, 2007.

(4) If the development of helicopters does not comply with the above paragraph (3) above, the non-party 2's individual promises to reduce the second floor of the commercial building (3.73 billion won) and the apartment (3.62 billion won on the one side), being constructed on the Australian Brel number.

C. On October 25, 2007, the Deceased prepared a letter of waiver of claim to the effect that “The Deceased may not resolve the lawsuit for cancellation of the pre-announcement of ownership registration of the instant real estate, and thus waives KRW 977,80,000 out of the sales balance under the instant sales contract,” and issued Skna Development.

D. On July 27, 2008, the Deceased died, and the Deceased’s claim for remainder of the purchase and sale of helicopters for the development of helicopters was inherited by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4, who are the wife, according to their inheritance ratio.

E. The plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration (the Changwon District Court 2008Gahap2070, hereinafter "previous lawsuit") with the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 1, and the non-party 2 paid the plaintiff 6.35 billion won and damages for delay. The plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration (the Changwon District Court 2008Gahap2070, hereinafter "previous lawsuit"), and the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 appointed two law firms as legal representatives and responded to the lawsuit.

F. On August 21, 2009, during the said lawsuit, the conciliation was concluded on August 21, 2009 that Plaintiff 1 would be paid KRW 5 billion from Skwan and Nonparty 2.

G. On January 21, 2009, the Plaintiffs reported to the Defendant the inheritance tax amount of KRW 0,00,00,000 on the said claim, asserting that “A claim of KRW 5,000,000 against Scai is recoverable claim.” Of the initial sales remaining amount of KRW 6,350,000, the Defendant rendered a disposition of KRW 5,372,20,000 ( = 6,350,000 - KRW 97,800,000 - KRW 977,800,000) - the amount of KRW 5,372,20,000 as inheritance tax base, and the said disposition was rendered on October 24, 2010 to the Plaintiff on June 1, 200, Plaintiff 3, and Plaintiff 6,67,767,75,767,707,75,767,700,75 of the inheritance tax of this case.

H. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal. On June 3, 2011, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the development of helicopters is insolvent, the plaintiffs' claims against helicopters are in a irrecoverable state, and the above claims should be excluded from the value of the inherited property.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of the property on which the inheritance tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date commencing the inheritance (hereinafter “date of appraisal”), and according to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “where a claim for a loan, bill, etc. is deemed to have been collectible as of the date of appraisal,” it shall be excluded from the value of the inherited property. The term “unresumable” in this context refers to the case where it is objectively confirmed that it is impossible to collect claims, and on the other hand, the impossibility of collecting claims falls under exceptional reasons in determining inheritance tax and amount, the burden of proof for such special reasons exists on the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9719, Mar. 14, 1995)

(2) According to the purport of each of the above statements and arguments No. 1 and No. 2, for the following reasons, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were jointly and severally 5,000,000 won of maximum debt amount of No. 206,000,000 won, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 60,000,000 won of 7,000,000 won of 5,000,000,0000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000,000 7,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,000) were 7,07,00.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Lee Il-ju (Presiding Judge)