Notice of tax payment to co-inheritors

It is reasonable to view that the total amount of taxes that co-inheritors are jointly and severally liable to pay is indicated as the collection notice amount, and that the amount of taxes to be paid by each co-inheritors has been individually imposed and collected according to the tax notice statement by joint and several taxpayers attached

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's action against the plaintiffs on August 12, 2008 as to the portion exceeding KRW 455,779,567 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 571,05,660 for the portion belonging to the year 2004 is dismissed, respectively.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 571,05,660 on August 12, 2008 against the Plaintiffs was revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The NetworkA is the husband of the Plaintiff NewB, the other Plaintiffs and the father of thisCC, who died on April 9, 2005.

B. On April 13, 2004, Dong-A transferred ** 1,845 square meters prior to Dong 655-1, 656-3 square meters prior to the same 656-3 square meters, and 2,770 square meters prior to the same 657-3 square meters prior to the same 657-3 square meters (hereinafter “previous farmland”), and on June 30, 2004 on the premise of the acquisition of substitute farmland, Dong-A reported to the Defendant as non-taxation at the time of filing a transfer income tax return on the previous farmland.

C. On July 19, 2004, the net AA acquired ○○○○○ ○○○○ 266 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “alternative farmland”) from 6,341 square meters.

D. After the death of the Network EA, thisCC independently inherited substitute farmland through consultation with the Plaintiffs, co-inheritors.

E. ThisCC transferred substitute farmland to SouthD on January 31, 2008.

F. On August 12, 2008, the Defendant deemed that it does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to substitute farmland, and determined and notified KRW 571,05,660 of capital gains tax for the year 2004 as a joint and several tax obligor (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on April 14, 2009 with the Tax Tribunal on November 11, 2008, but were dismissed on January 14, 2010.

H. On November 26, 2009, the Defendant revoked the part exceeding KRW 455,779,567 of the disposition of this case by recognizing the fact of self-reliance on the previous farmland of the deceased Lee Dong-A for at least eight years.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defense prior to the merits

As to the plaintiffs' claim for the revocation of the disposition of this case against the defendant, the defendant revoked the designation of joint and several tax payment obligor against the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff NewB (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs"), so the remaining plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

According to the evidence No. 5, the fact that the defendant revoked the designation related to the service to the rest of the plaintiffs can be acknowledged, but it cannot be said that the remaining plaintiffs' joint and several tax liability ceases to exist. Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Determination on the part exceeding KRW 455,779,567 of the instant disposition

As seen earlier, the Defendant already revoked the part exceeding KRW 455,779,567 by reducing KRW 115,276,101 of the instant disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit on this part is unlawful as it does not have any interest.

4. Determination on the part concerning KRW 455,779,567 of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The instant capital gains tax is established at the time it was found that the three-year requirements for substitute farmland have not been met. Therefore, only thisCC is a taxpayer and the Plaintiffs are not taxpayers.

2) Even if the Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for payment of the transfer income tax of this case, they are limited to their shares of inheritance and do not bear the total amount.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1. Time when the liability for payment of transfer income tax in this case accrues;

The key issue of this case is when the time when the capital gains tax liability is established when farmland is transferred and acquired as substitute farmland.

① In the course of the series of direct cultivation of the previous farmland ? ② (2) direct cultivation of the previous farmland ? ③ the acquisition of substitute farmland ? ④ (4) direct cultivation of substitute farmland, there is no reason to exclude the application of Article 21(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010) unlike the transfer of other farmland, and Article 21(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010) (the last day of the month in which the amount becomes a tax base) is not satisfied, and the capital gains tax liability for the transfer of the previous farmland directly cultivated at the time of the transfer of the previous farmland is established, and this cannot be said to be unlawful against the trust protection principle

In the instant case, this case’s death on April 9, 2005, and the fact that the time of the transfer of the directly cultivated farmland was April 13, 2004 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the duty to pay capital gains tax established at the time of the existence of thisA is deemed to have been inherited to the Plaintiffs due to the death of thisA.

2) Scope of joint and several tax liability

According to Article 3(1) and (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010); Articles 24 and 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc., inheritance tax to be paid by each heir shall be deemed to have the nature of co-ownership as a tax payable for the heritage of the inheritee by nature. Since national taxes, etc. related to public property are jointly and severally liable for payment by co-owners, the heir is jointly and severally liable for payment of inheritance tax to the extent of property received or to

In addition, in cases where the tax authority imposed inheritance tax, etc. on co-inheritors with the total amount of tax payable at the tax payment notice, the tax base and tax rate for the calculation basis thereof, and the amount of tax calculated by each co-inheritors as well as the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors in the tax payment notice, along with a detailed statement of the amount of tax notified by each co-inheritors’s inherited property possession ratio and the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors as a taxpayer, if the tax authority granted the tax payment notice to the co-inheritors indicated as a taxpayer, it is reasonable to deem that the total amount of tax payable in the tax payment notice was indicated as the amount of tax notified jointly and severally liable by co-inheritors pursuant to Article 3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors was individually imposed and collected according to the detailed statement of tax notified by each co-inheritors attached to the tax payment notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10316, Dec. 2

In this case, the defendant confirmed the transfer income tax to be paid by EA, the decedent, and specified the shares of inheritance, etc. in the list of the heir's tax amount to be paid by the heir (Article 1-2) and Article 24 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is lawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits regarding the portion exceeding KRW 455,779,567 among the dispositions of this case are lawful and dismissed, respectively, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.