Order of property appropriated for payment in kind;

The purpose of specifying the order of property paid in kind under the Enforcement Decree with delegation by the mother law is to give priority to property which is easy to secure objectivity of restitution or value, and its contents cannot be deemed unreasonable or unreasonable even if it is subject to payment in kind prior to non-listed stocks.

Article 73 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The rejection disposition against the application for the payment in kind that the defendant notified to the plaintiffs on March 10, 2006 is revoked (the plaintiff's claim of March 10, 2003 is considered to be a clerical error of " March 10, 2006".

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11-1 through 3, and 12.

가. 원고들은 망 ◯◯◯(2005.2.1.사망)의 상속인들로서 2005.7.26. 아래 상속재산에 대하여 상속세 과세표준 신고를 하면서 상속세액 693,900,000원 중 173,475,000원을 현금으로 납부하고 나머지 520,425,000원에 대하여는 연부연납을 신청하였다.

No.

Inherited

Values

Jinay

1

Deposits, etc.

73,022,00 won

2

Sub-movables

○○○○ ○○ 1-4 Site and Ground Building

143,901,00 won

3

○○○ ○○ ○ 1-5 Site

127,024,00 won

4

○○○ ○○ ○ 798-1

80,500,000 won

5

○○○ ○○ ○ 798-4

9,486,00 won

6

○○○○○ ○ 801 Site and Ground Building

267,178,00 won

Residence of the plaintiffs

7

○○○○○ ○ 853-16 Site and Ground Buildings

731,651,00 won

On June 29, 2005, sale to the non-party company

8

○○○○○ ○ 853-19 Site and Ground Buildings

88,227,00 won

9

◯◯◯◯◯◯ 주식회사의 비상장주식 40,000주

1,036,512,00 won

Total

3,357,501,000 won

B. On December 16, 2005, the Defendant permitted payment by annual installments on condition that the Plaintiffs offer the security for tax payment, but on January 18, 2006, the Defendant revoked the permission for payment by annual installments on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not offer the security for tax payment and notified the Plaintiffs of the amount of inheritance tax of KRW 549,152,00 (=tax amount applied for annual installments + KRW 520,425,00 + KRW 28,727,000) on February 13, 2006.

다. 원고들은 2006. 2. 6. 상속재산 중 ◯◯◯◯◯◯ ◯◯◯◯(이하 '소외 회사'라고만 한다)의 비상장주식 9,430주(평가액 230,000,000원, 이하 '이 사건 주식'이라고 한다)에 대하여 물납을 신청하고, 2006. 2. 28. 위와 같이 경정•고지된 상속세 549,152,000원중 319,152,000원을 현금으로 납부하였다.

D. On March 10, 2006, the defendant rejected the plaintiffs' application for payment in kind (hereinafter referred to as "the refusal of payment in kind") on the ground that it did not follow the order of appropriation for payment in kind in accordance with Article 74 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and ordered the change of the property paid in kind with the inherited property (real estate) other than the shares of this case.

마. 원고 ◯◯◯은 이에 불복하여 2006. 3. 23. 국세청장에게 심사청구를 하였고, 2006. 6. 26. 국세청장으로부터 기각결정을 받게 되자 2006. 8. 25. 이 사건 소를 제기하였다.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 73(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for detailed requirements for payment in kind, and Article 73(2) of the same Act provides that matters delegated by the Presidential Decree concerning the procedure for payment in kind shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. The scope of the amount of tax payable. The scope of property that can be appropriated for payment in kind, the determination of the amount of property to be appropriated for payment in kind, and the order of delegation of property to be appropriated for payment in kind. Thus, Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides the order of appropriation for payment in kind, is invalid as it goes beyond the delegation scope under Article 73 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In addition, Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is null and void as it goes against the purport of Article 73 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which restricts the taxpayer’s right to use the system of payment in kind, based on an excessively limited position to the national treasury.

(2) 가사 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령 제74조 제2항의 규정이유효하여 위 규정이 정한 물납충당순서에 의해야 하더라도 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에는 그 순서에 의하지 아니할 수 있는 바, 원고들의 상속재산 중 '◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 1-4 대 14.9㎥ 및 지상 건물' 및 ' ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 1-5 대 13.6㎥'는 원고들이 운영하는 소외 회사의 서울 사무실로 사용되고 있고, '◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 798-1 전 140㎥ 및 ' ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 798-4 전 17㎥는 소외 호사의 인천공장에 부속된 주차장으로 사용되고 있어 만일 이를 물납하면 소외 회사의 존립 및 운영에 심각한 타격을 입게 되므로, 이 사건 주식으로 물납신청한 것에는 정당한 이유가 있고, 따라서 이 사건 거부처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

Actual Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 73 (Payment in Kind)

① 납세지 관할세무서장은 상속 또는 증여받은 재산 중 부동산과 유가증권의 가액이 당해 재산가액의 2분의 1을 초과하고 상속세납부세액 또는 증여세납부세액이 1천만원을 초과하는 경우에는 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 납세의무자의 신청을 받아 당해 부동산과 유가증권에 한하여 물납을 허가할 수 있다. 다만, 물납신청한 재산의 관리・처분이 부적당하다고 인정되는 경우에는 물납허가를 핮디 아니할 수 있다.

(2) The scope of securities which may be paid in kind, procedures for payment in kind where management and disposition is deemed inappropriate shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Enforcement Decree

Article 74 (Scope, etc. of Property that may be Used for Payment in Kind)

(1) Real estate and securities which may be appropriated for payment in kind under Article 73 of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Real estate located in Korea; and

2. State bonds, public bonds, stock certificates, bonds or securities issued by a domestic corporation and other securities prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy: Provided, That the Korea Stock Exchange and stock certificates falling under Article 53 shall be excluded herefrom, but the same shall not apply to cases where no other inheritance or donated property exists, and where the disposal is restricted pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act as of the day preceding the date of issuance of the notice

(2) Property appropriated for payment in kind under paragraph (1) shall be applied and permitted in the following order except in extenuating circumstances:

1. National bonds and public bonds; and

2. Securities (excluding property under subparagraph 1) provided for in the proviso to paragraph (1) 2, which are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange;

3. Real estate located in Korea (excluding the property of subparagraph 5); and

4. Securities (excluding the property of subparagraph 1) provided for in paragraph (1) 2, which are not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange;

5. Housing and its appurtenant land residing by an heir as of the commencement date of inheritance;

C. As to the assertion that Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act exceeds the delegation scope of the parent law, or is null and void in violation of the legislative intent, and that the instant refusal disposition

Article 73(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the scope of source of gift tax payable in kind, where management and disposition is deemed inappropriate, or other matters necessary for the procedure of payment in kind shall be determined by the Presidential Decree." Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the order of property to be followed at the time of application for payment in kind is specified. Unlike cash payment, the purpose of this provision is to ensure the refund of the relevant property in kind and the objectivity of its value in case of payment in kind is very important. Therefore, in a case where there are several property subject to payment in kind, unless there are special circumstances, the objectivity of its value is relatively easily secured, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the content of real estate located in Korea than non-listed stocks is unreasonable or unfair even if it is subject to preferential payment in kind. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be deemed invalid because Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree goes beyond the delegation of the mother Act or contrary to the legislative intent.

(2) As to the assertion that there are justifiable grounds for applying for payment in kind with the instant shares instead of real estate

갑 제 7, 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 1-4 대 14.9㎥ 및 그 지상건물, ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 1-5 대 13.6㎥는 협의분할에 의한 상속을 원인으로 현재 원고 ◯◯◯, ◯◯◯이 각 1/2 지분을 소유하고 있고, ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 798-1 전 140㎥ 및 ◯◯ ◯◯◯ ◯◯◯ 798-4 전 17㎥는 원고들이 공동소유하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 원고들의 주장과 같이 위 부동산이 소외 회사의 업무용으로 제공되고 있다고 하더라도 소외 회사의 입장에서는 위 부동산을 임차인의 지위에서 사용하고 있는 것이므로, 설사 원고들이 위 부동산을 물납함으로써 그 부동산 소유자가 원고들로부터 대한민국 또는 제3자로 변경된다고 하여 이로써 소외 회사가 위 부동산을 임차 또는 매수하여 이를 사용 수익할 수 있는 기회가 소멸한다고는 볼 수 없다. 따라서 위 부동산들이 소외 회사의 운영에 필수적인 부동산이어서 물납할 수 없다는 원고의 주장은 선뜻 받아들이기 어렵고, 달리 부동산 대신에 이 사건 주식으로 물납신청하는 것에 정당한 사유가 있음을 인정할 자료가 없다. 결국, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.