Suwon District Court-2016-Guhap6402 ( June 20, 2017)

It is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason due to the failure of Plaintiffs to report and pay gift tax.

It is difficult to see that there is a justifiable reason following the failure of the Plaintiffs to report and pay gift tax, and therefore, it is difficult to see that there is any illegality in the disposition of this case imposing penalty tax on the Plaintiffs.

Article 48 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Nu5924

shall be null and void, and therefore this disposition shall not result from the beginning.

(2) The trust of this case is subject to the management trust of this case. The trust of this case is subject to the management trust

solely based on the circumstances that the acceptance of the instant case is deemed immediately null and void. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have immediately invalidated.

The assertion of this part of this Court cannot be accepted).

○ From 10th to 12th 5th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 206.

C. Determination on imposition of additional tax

1) For the purpose of facilitating the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law

If a taxpayer violates a tax return, tax liability, etc. prescribed by the law without any justifiable reason, the law shall be determined.

person liable for duty payment is not aware of his or her duties as administrative sanctions imposed by such person.

not unreasonable, there is a circumstance in which it can be justified to give it or there is an obligation to do so.

If it is unreasonable to expect the parties to conduct such an act, he/she is responsible for neglecting his/her duty, such as the case of an unreasonable reason.

under the tax law unless there is a legitimate reason not to do so, the failure to perform the obligations under the tax law shall be imposed.

must be (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4849, Nov. 8, 2002). Such additional tax

In a disposition of imposition, the taxpayer's intention or negligence is not considered and the site, error, etc. of the Act is not considered.

It does not constitute a justifiable ground that does not constitute a breach of duty (Supreme Court Decision 206 June 24, 2004).

High Court Decision 2002Du10780 decided Feb. 1, 200

(ii) each entry in Category B(5) to 9 may be admitted by adding to the whole purport of the pleading:

In full view of all the above circumstances, the Plaintiffs did not perform their duty to report and pay gift tax.

It is difficult to see that there is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the failure to perform the duty.

Therefore, there is any illegality in the disposition of this case where penalty tax is imposed on the plaintiffs.

shall not be effective.

(1) Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010)

According to Paragraph 1, in principle, the property trusted by the deceased shall be regarded as inherited property, and trust by another person.

of such interest, only the equivalent value of such interest shall be the inheritance tax.

It is only excluded from the tax base. In light of the substance and purport of the above legal provisions, the above provision is also excluded from the tax base.

In relation to the interpretation, it is difficult to see that there is a conflict of opinion due to doubt in interpretation.

② ParkBB (referring to the Plaintiff both A and the husband of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff ParkCC, and ParkD) is a mother-friendly E.

On February 29, 2012, the land of this case (an area equivalent to the share of the EE) to the defendant around February 29, 2012

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs reported on February 2012, the same year.

3. A preliminary return or revised return of capital gains tax to the defendant on February 2014.

With respect to the land of this case, the land above was inherited on March 9, 2006 and June 26, 2007.

I stated that the acquisition was made.

③ Even if the instant land was entrusted with a trust, in principle, the trust property may also be inherited property.

In addition, in light of the reported details as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are also considered to be the instant case.

ParkB seems to have recognized the land as a part of the inherited property. The circumstances appear to have existed.

The plaintiffs are entitled to receive the compensation of the land of this case from the heir ParkB.

I seem to have known that it constitutes a gift. The plaintiffs might have known that it constitutes a gift.

Even if the land of this case was recognized as not included in the inherited property, it is a law.

It is inevitable to view that it was due to misunderstanding or sites.

④ Whether the instant land is included in the deceased’s inherited property, or from ParkB, the inheritor.

Whether the plaintiffs are subject to gift tax in cases where compensation is distributed;

No question was made to the tax authorities, and the tax authorities expressed any opinion on this issue.

Therefore, the tax authority’s erroneous advice that the Plaintiffs did not report and pay gift tax.

shall not be deemed due to the Dong.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed in entirety as there is no ground.

Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court against the defendant is unfair as a result of the different conclusion, the cancellation shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the part are dismissed. The remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of appeal.

Both AAA02

F. F. Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap64402 Decided June 20, 2017

March 7, 2018

April 18, 2018

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are all dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

Imposition of each gift tax (including additional tax) stated in the attached Form 3 (Attachment 1) by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs

2. Cancellation

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiffs: The judgment of the first instance court is modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

(b) Defendant: It is as described in paragraph (1) of this Article;

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court is to use this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Use]

○ The 10th 16th 10th 16th 10th 16th 16th 10th 206.

The plaintiffs shall not be deemed to be illegal (On the other hand, the plaintiffs shall not be deemed to be illegal if they are only the management trust.