Seocho 209west 3858 ( October 25, 2010)

No sales contract shall be deemed the market price as it constitutes a false contract.

Since it is reasonable to view that a sales contract which is the cause of the registration of the right to claim a transfer of all shares and the right to claim a transfer of ownership is a false contract without the actual agreement of the parties, each of the above sales contracts is valid, there is no reason to believe that the above sales contract is valid, and an inheritor’s obligation must be proved by the debt-sharing contract

2011Guhap2460 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

United StatesA

Head of the tax office;

April 6, 2012

April 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on January 5, 2009 against the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties listed in the Appendix 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, together with the Plaintiff”), shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs shall be the deceased's heir with the children of the NetCC (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased").

B. As the deceased died on August 30, 2006, on February 28, 2007, the plaintiffs declared the inheritance tax base to the defendant as KRW 000 [the value of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 2 of the Real Estate List No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate No. 1 of this case"), the value of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same Schedule No. 2 of the same case (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate No. 2 of this case", and the total value of the real estate No. 1 and 2 of this case, hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate of this case") by calculating the amount of debt and the deducted amount as KRW 00,000].

C. From May 6, 2008 to September 19, 2008, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the deceased’s inherited property and notified the Defendant of the result. The Defendant: (a) considered the value of the inherited property as KRW 000 (the value of the first real property of this case, KRW 000, the value of the second real property of this case, KRW 000), the amount of the debt, and the amount of the deduction; (b) considered the inheritance tax base as KRW 000,000; and (c) imposed the inheritance tax and additional tax on the Plaintiffs on January 2, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The real estate No. 1 is the real estate that was transferred from the deceased on June 11, 1999 to DD (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"), and the real estate No. 2 is the real estate that was already disposed of before the deceased's death. The plaintiffs agreed on February 23, 2007 the balance of the transfer price of the non-party company and the non-party company No. 1 real estate No. 2 as KRW 000, and the balance of the transfer price of the real estate No. 2 as KRW 000, and thereafter, the aggregate of the transfer price of the real estate No. 2 as 00, and the value of the inherited property of each of the above real estate shall be KRW 00,000, while the value of the inherited property of each of the above real estate shall be the officially assessed value of each real estate at the time of commencing the inheritance.

2) In order to assess the amount of inherited property value of each real estate of this case as a price for which the deceased did not deduct the transfer value paid to the deceased, a sum of KRW 000,000, which was to offset and dispose of the transfer value of each real estate of this case, as a debt to the non-party company and the plaintiffs, should be deducted from the value of inherited property. At least 00,000, which is the smaller amount between the amount of confirmation document and the cash receipt and disbursement book, should be recognized as an inheritance liability. Ultimately, the instant disposition of this case was unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 12, 1999, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of all shares based on the purchase promise on June 11, 1999 under the name of the non-party company as to the real estate No. 1 of this case owned by the deceased, and the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the purchase promise on June 16, 1999, was made under the name of the non-party company on June 10, 199.

2) Meanwhile, on February 23, 2007, the Selection EE, the FF, the UG, and the UH drafted the following agreements with the non-party company after the death of the deceased.

3) On March 9, 2007, the non-party company filed an application for conciliation against the plaintiffs for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each real estate of this case with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007M2790, and in the conciliation case above, the conciliation was concluded on May 1, 2007 that the plaintiffs implemented the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party company on February 23, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007M2790) with respect to each real estate of this case on February 26, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument of the plaintiffs

With respect to the real estate No. 1 of this case, it is reasonable to view that the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of all shares on June 12, 1999 in the name of the non-party company on June 11, 1999, and the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of shares on June 16, 199 with respect to the real estate No. 2 of this case was completed on June 10, 199 in the name of the non-party company on June 16, 199, respectively. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 3, No. 5-1 through 4, No. 1-5, and No. 2, it is reasonable to view that the promise that caused the right to claim transfer of the entire share and the right to claim transfer of shares is a false contract without the agreement of the parties concerned. Thus, each of the above agreements is valid or each of the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

A) The non-party company is a company or a family company of the deceased whose shares are 56% (50,400 shares/90,000 shares) and most of the remaining shares are owned by the Plaintiffs who are the deceased’s children, and whose representative director, director, auditor, etc. are registered.

B) The sales contract for real estate No. 1, prepared in the name of the deceased and the non-party company, on the real estate of this case, KRW 000,000, the down payment and the intermediate payment, out of the purchase price of KRW 000,000, shall be offset by the rent for the real estate No. 2, the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "third real estate of this case"), which the deceased received from May 30, 199, and the remaining 00,000, is stated that the payment of rent for the ownership of the building after the date of the contract. The sales contract for the real estate No. 2, which was made in the name of the deceased and the non-party company of this case, was made in the name of the deceased and the non-party company of this case, and the plaintiff's third real estate rent for the building of this case, and the remaining 00,000,000,000, is not in the form of money in fact paid.

C) On June 15, 1999, with respect to each real estate listed in the list Nos. 1 through 7 of the list of real estate details in the provisional registration No. 3 attached to the deceased’s possession, each real estate listed in the list No. 8 and 9 of the same list was registered on June 17, 199. However, each non-party company was registered on June 17, 199, but the provisional registration on each of the above real estate was registered in the form without substantial transaction with the non-party company in order for the deceased to be exempted from provisional seizure from the third creditor, etc. in light of Article 3(4) of the agreement of February 23, 2007, the provisional registration completed on each of the above real estate of this case

D) The sales contract for each real estate of this case is a transaction by a person having a special transaction relation, and there was no implementation of the sales contract even after several years have passed since a provisional registration for each real estate was made.

E) On June 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an application with the non-party company for the conciliation of the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the Seoul Central District Court 2009s money7973, and asserted that the establishment of the sales contract concluded between the deceased and the non-party company with respect to each of the real estate of this case cannot be recognized. In the conciliation case above, the conciliation of the non-party company's implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of the contract on February 23, 2007 to the plaintiffs was established on August 18, 2009, with respect to the real estate of this case on July 6, 2010, and on June 23, 2010 with respect to the second real estate of this case on June 23, 2007, respectively, the ownership transfer registration in the plaintiffs' name was completed on February 23, 2007.

2) Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiffs

A) The burden of proving the value of inherited property is, in principle, at the tax authority, the burden of proof for the value of inherited property, but a debt owed to the State, a local government, or a person other than a financial institution shall be proved by a contract for debt burden, a certificate of creditor, a document evidencing the establishment of collateral and payment of interest, etc. under Article 14(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B) In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ above assertion only by the partial statement of evidence No. 3, and otherwise there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount to be deducted from the value of inherited property reaches KRW 00,000 or KRW 00, as the deceased’s obligation, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The Plaintiffs submitted a written agreement dated February 23, 2007, drawn up under the name of the designated parties EE, EF, UG, UG, UH, and Non-Party Company, with evidence that the deceased bears the obligation of this case against the Plaintiffs and Non-Party Company. However, such written agreement cannot be deemed as falling under the documents, etc. prepared after the death, as stipulated in Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(2) On February 23, 2007, the agreement was made between the Appointer’s EE, UF, UG, UG, UH and UH on the part of the representative director. According to the above agreement, KRW 00 out of the purchase price of the real estate No. 1 of the instant case was set off against the Defendant’s Appointer’s E, UF, UFF, UG, UG, UG and UH’s loan obligations equivalent to the same amount as UH.S.’s loan obligations. Of the purchase price of the instant real estate No. 2 of the instant real estate, KRW 00 out of the KRW 000 of the purchase price to the deceased’s E, U.S.F, U.G, U.H, and Nonparty company’s debt equivalent to the same amount as the Plaintiff’s E, U.S.F., U., MG, U.G, and U.G.’s non-party company.

(3) The above agreement was made on the premise that the sales contract for each of the instant real estate was duly established. However, the Plaintiffs, while disputing the establishment of each of the above sales contracts after the date, sought restitution of ownership of each of the instant real estate against the non-party company.

(4) The Plaintiffs asserted that, based on the cash receipt and disbursement book of a sub-committee company, the deceased’s inheritance liability reaches at least KRW 000,000. However, the Plaintiffs did not submit cash receipts and disbursements on account of

3. Conclusion

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