Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-69932 ( April 14, 2017)

Examination Donation 2016-005 (2016.05.09)

Where a re-division is made upon a separate will after the division of inherited property is completed, the donation shall be applicable to the donation.

Since the division of inherited property is the money paid pursuant to a separate agreement in order to terminate the separation between families surrounding inherited property after the completion of all through the first agreement, it constitutes a donation.

Article 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu45317

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap69932 decided April 14, 2017

September 20, 2017

October 18, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on August 11, 2015 shall be revoked by the Defendant.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

At the time of the first agreement, the Plaintiff did not make a partition agreement on the instant land share at the time of the first agreement, and around 1999, when selling the instant land share, the Plaintiff, lowestD, lowestA, and 00 (hereinafter referred to as “joint inheritors”) agreed to have the proceeds of sale divided by 1/4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s receipt of KRW 380 million from the largestA, which does not constitute a gift.

In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court cited by this court, and the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the overall purport of pleadings, i.e., inheritance by consultation and division as of August 30, 1999, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the largestA was completed on July 15, 1993, and the registration of inheritance under the name of co-inheritors was not completed. The first agreement dated March 14, 1994 does not include any further consultation or adjustment on the share in the land of this case, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence regarding the inheritance from the second agreement around 199 to the second agreement, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was not entitled to 30 billion won for the inheritance from the 1999, 199, 300 million won after the completion of the inheritance, 300,000 won after the completion of the inheritance, 300,000 won in the name of the first agreement.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.