Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap2853 (Law No. 16, 2013)

Whether a disposition not to allow payment in kind in excess of the ratio of securities, etc. is legitimate

(1) In principle, the allowable scope of payment in kind is limited to the amount of inheritance tax imposed on the value of real estate and securities among inherited property, and the circumstances such as difficulties in asset realization asserted by the plaintiff do not constitute a case where there is no value suitable for the payment in kind among inherited property, real estate and securities. Thus, the disposition in this case which did not permit payment in kind is lawful.

Article 73 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Payment in Kind)

2013Nu46305 The revocation of revocation of revocation of payment in kind.

The two AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap2853 decided July 16, 2013

December 13, 2013

January 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "appointed party") and the designated parties shall be revoked.

The provisional disposition of refusal of payment in kind made on April 23, 2012 with respect to the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") and the provisional disposition of refusal of payment in kind made on July 10, 2012 shall be revoked.

The reasons why a party member should explain the instant case are as follows: (a) the “○○○○○○○○○” of the first instance court’s 3 pages 12 as “△△△○○○○○”; and (b) the “Evidence A2” of the same 18th page is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning 1 and 2, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.