It cannot be deemed that a claim can not be recovered, and the inherited property cannot be deemed divided.

Since it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant claim was in an irrecoverable state as of the commencement date of inheritance, it shall be included in the inherited property, and since the inherited property within the time limit for the division of a spouse’s inherited property cannot be seen as divided, the

Article 19 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015-Gu Partnership-80031 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 9, 2016

November 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) inherited on November 23, 2011, which was rendered on June 25, 2011 to the Plaintiff on the part of November 23, 2011, in excess of KRW 000,000 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased CCC (hereinafter “the decedent”). On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and the decedent’s heir DD and EE, who are his/her heir, reported the taxable value of inherited property as KRW 0,000,000,000, the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount as KRW 0,000,000,000, and paid the inheritance tax amount around that time.

B. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant added KRW 00,000,00 to the taxable value of inherited property by reflecting the value, etc. of inherited property under-reported by the inheritor, and ② “the heir did not divide the inherited property by November 30, 2012,” deeming the amount of the spouse’s inheritance deduction as the minimum deduction amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 for the spouse’s inheritance deduction as the excessive amount of KRW 00,000,000 (including general under-reported penalty tax of KRW 0,000,000,000,000,000) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “first disposition”).

C. On June 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filed a report on the acquisition amount of KRW 0,000,000 with the FFFF (hereinafter “FFFF”) of the decedent’s FF (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 0,000,000,000 + damages for delay up to November 23, 201, which was the date the inheritance commences; (b) omitted; (c) on the ground that the instant claim is not a claim that is impossible as of the date the inheritance commences; (d) added the instant claim amount to the taxable value of inherited property; and (e) added the inheritance tax amount of KRW 0,00,000,000 (including general under-reported penalty tax of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 with insufficient payment, penalty tax of KRW 00,000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant claim”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the second disposition and filed an objection on August 15, 2014, and the GG Commissioner of the GG Regional Tax Office decided to rectify the tax base and tax amount by applying the spouse inheritance deduction, deeming that the division of inherited property for the instant claim has become final and conclusive within the time limit for the division of inherited property. According to the above determination, the Defendant calculated the spouse inheritance deduction amount at KRW 000,000,000 on October 24, 2014, deeming the Plaintiff’s legal share of inherited property to have been divided by the time limit for the division of inherited property by the time limit for the division of inherited property (the second disposition that was reduced as above is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on January 14, 2015. However, on July 22, 2015, the Tax Tribunal notified the Plaintiff of the decision that “The tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the result of re-examination as to whether the instant claim was recoverable as of the date commencing the inheritance, and the remainder of the appeal is dismissed.”

F. From August 3, 2015 to August 22, 2015, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation of inheritance tax, and on September 3, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that the instant disposition is justifiable.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. As to whether the claim of this case includes inherited property and the value thereof

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) In light of the progress of litigation as to the instant claim and the property status of HH and FF, the debtor of the instant claim, such as existing agreed money, etc., in light of the property status of FFF, the debtor of the instant claim, etc., it is unlawful to include this in the value of the inherited property, since the instant claim was in a condition that it is entirely impossible to recover at the time of commencing the inheritance

B) Even if the claim of this case should be included in the value of the inherited property, it is unlawful to include the value of the inherited property in the value of the claim of this case by evaluating the value of the claim of this case by adding the attempted interest and the amount equivalent to the inherited property from the face value of the claim of this case until the commencing

C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the instant claim against the JJJ (hereinafter “JJ”) that appears to have taken over business from the FFF due to the lack of the FFF’s ability to perform its obligations. However, on January 7, 2014, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant claim and became final and conclusive at that time. If the Defendant previously disposed of the instant claim by including the instant claim in the inherited property, the Plaintiff could file a subsequent claim for rectification within two months from January 7, 2014, and the Defendant was unable to file the subsequent claim for rectification by taking the second disposition on June 25, 2014. Considering such circumstances, it is necessary to appropriately adjust the value of the instant claim that was excessively included in the tax base (hereinafter “claim 3”).

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) The progress of the litigation on the instant claim is as follows.

Date

Progress of Litigation

September 9, 2009

In the litigation of an agreed amount between the decedent and HH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HH”), the GG Central District Court rendered a judgment that “Defendant HH shall pay the decedent an amount of KRW 0,000,000,000,000, plus the amount of KRW 1,000,000,000, and the amount of damages for delay (GG Central District Court 2009,000,000).” The above judgment is finalized as it is.

November 3, 2009

H H Business transfer to the FFF after paying only 72 million won out of the above amount to the decedent.

November 9, 2009

H H H Closure of business

November 16, 2010

In filing a lawsuit with the FFF seeking payment of KRW 0,00,000,000 and damages for delay, excluding KRW 72,000,000,000,000, which have been repaid by HH with the FF;

November 23, 2011

(b)the litigation acceptance of the plaintiff, the inheritor, and DD and EE;

From November 28, 201 to December 201

FFF has carried on a video lecture project through HH published Private Teaching Institutes project and online sites. FFFF transfers the right to operate online sites on November 28, 201 to JJJJ and transfers all the rights related to the operation of FFF remote lifelong education facilities to JJJ on December 201.

February 7, 2012

FFFF has closed down a HHH public notice institute.

February 14, 2012

The GGnam District Court rendered a judgment that Defendant FFFF, a transferee of HH’s business, shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 000,000,000, DD and EE, respectively, for the amount of KRW 000,000,000 in proportion to the heir’s statutory shares in inheritance (Gnam District Court 2010,000).

Date

Progress of Litigation

October 12, 2012

GG High Court rendered a judgment dismissing Defendant FFF’s appeal (G High Court Decision 2012Na0000). The above judgment is final and conclusive.

March 9, 2013

Plaintiff, DD and EE file a lawsuit against JJ seeking payment of 00,000,000 won remaining after receiving payment from the FFFF from the FFF, by dividing the remainder by the statutory share of inheritance and damages for delay.

January 7, 2014

GGnam District Court rendered a judgment dismissing all claims of the Plaintiff and DD and EE on the ground that it is difficult to view that the FFF and JJ have transferred business between the FF and the JJ (GG Southern District Court 2013Gahap000). The above judgment is finalized as it is.

B) On December 31, 2009, FFF’s current assets are KRW 0,00,000,000 for assets as of December 31, 2009; KRW 0,000,000 for liabilities; and KRW 0,000,000 for business year 2009 for FFF’s sales amount are KRW 00,000,000 for net income, and KRW 0,000 for net income.

C) On December 31, 2010, FFF’s current assets are KRW 00,000,000,000 for assets as of December 31, 2010; KRW 0,000,000 for liabilities; and KRW 00,000 for business year 2010 for FF’s sales amount is KRW 00,000,000 for net income; KRW 0,000,000 for net income.

D) On December 31, 201, FFF’s current assets are KRW 00,00,000,000 for assets as of December 31, 201, and KRW 0,000 for liabilities, and KRW 0,000,000 for liabilities. Moreover, FF’s sales for the business year of 2011 are KRW 00,000,000 for annual income, and net income is KRW 0,000,000 for net income.

E) On December 31, 2012, FFF’s current assets are KRW 0,00,000,000 for assets as of December 31, 2012; KRW 000,000 for liabilities; and KRW 00,000,000 for business year 2012 for FF’s sales, and net losses for the current period are KRW 0,000,000 for net losses.

F) On December 31, 2013, FFF’s current assets are KRW 0,00,000,000 for assets as of December 31, 2013, and liabilities are KRW 0,000,000 for liabilities. Moreover, FF’s sales for the business year of 2013 are KRW 0,000,000 for total sales, and net losses for the current business year are KRW 00,000 for total sales.

G) The FFF voluntarily paid 00,000,000 won in total from November 23, 2011 to March 10, 2014, which was the date on which the inheritance commences.

아) 상속인들인 원고와 DDD, EEE는 2013. 5. 24.부터 2013. 9.경까지 채권압류 및 추심명령에 근거하여 FFFFF의 채무자인 주식회사 LLLLL, 주식회사 QQ은행, 주식회사 WW은행, EEEE은행으로부터 합계 000,000,000원을 추심하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 20, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 (including relevant numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

A) As to the first argument

(1) Article 7(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that “property belongs to the decedent and includes all the legal or de facto rights having property value.” Therefore, the monetary claim held by the decedent should be included in the inherited property, unless any special circumstance exists to deem that it is objectively impossible to recover all or part of the monetary claim possessed by the decedent as of the date of commencing the inheritance, and thus, it does not have property value.

(2) The following circumstances revealed in addition to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire argument revealed earlier, namely, ① the FFF, the debtor of the instant claim, did not undergo the commencement of bankruptcy, rehabilitation, compulsory execution, etc. as of November 23, 201, which was the commencement date of inheritance; ② the FFF was operating a business at the commencement date of inheritance; ③ the FFF had generated KRW 0 billion in net income during the business year 201, which included the commencement date of inheritance; ③ the FFFF had generated KRW 0 billion in total and KRW 0 billion in total for each business year 2009 and 2010, respectively; ④ The FFFF had continued operating a business for 2012 and 2013 years, which was the commencement date of inheritance; ⑤ The Plaintiff’s claim for excess KRW 30 billion in net income from KRW 201,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000 from KRW 313,20131,2131,20.

B) As to the second argument

(1) The main sentence of Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of an asset on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal");" Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "where it is difficult to calculate the market price in the application of paragraph (1), the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 shall be deemed the market price in consideration of the type, scale, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant asset, other than stocks and equity shares, shall be appraised by the methods prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant asset, and Article 63(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where the amount of the right at issue exceeds the value of the original asset at issue, or is evaluated as the average value of the asset at issue and at issue, other than the newly accepted rate of inheritance tax and gift tax, the value of the original asset at issue shall not be evaluated."

"Rights during the inheritance period" shall be calculated based on the market price of 00 won at the time of commencement of inheritance, i.e., 00 won at the time of commencement of inheritance. However, even if there was a dispute over the existence or scope of the rights, if the contents and scope of the rights in the lawsuit have been determined specifically through the court's judgment before the closing of argument in the lawsuit concerned, the value of the rights in the lawsuit should be assessed based on the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance, unless there are other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du110, Apr. 9, 2004). Meanwhile, even if the whole or part of the monetary claim, which is inherited, is deemed impossible as at the time of commencement of inheritance, as at the time of commencement of inheritance, the amount calculated by adding 00 won to the value of the claims calculated by adding 00 won to the value of the transferred property at the time of commencement of inheritance, as at the time of commencement of inheritance, there is no possibility of calculating the above amount to be assessed.

C) As to the third argument

Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that “Any person who has filed a return on a tax base by the statutory deadline for return, or who has received a determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes, may request the determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause, if the transaction, act, etc., which served as the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of national taxes in the initial return, becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment (including reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment) in the lawsuit

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 20, the judgment of the plaintiff 20, GGGG District Court 2013Kahap0000, which is claimed by the plaintiff, on the ground that "it is difficult to view that there was an implied business transfer contract under which the plaintiff, DDD, and EE will transfer the same as the source of revenue systematically organized between the FFF and JJ, the functional property of 'HHH-Public Research Institute' project, and the 'HHH-Public Research Institute' project, which is a functional source of revenue, and the 'EJJJ' project through an online site, while maintaining the identity thereof." According to the above facts, even if the above judgment became final and conclusive, the claim of this case where the FFFF is the debtor does not extinguish even if the plaintiff made the second disposition before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff can file a subsequent claim for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The premise

C. Regarding the spouse's inheritance deduction amount

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The part concerning the spouse's inheritance deduction among the dispositions of this case is illegal for the following reasons.

A) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) divided the entire inherited property, which is not required to be registered, registered, or transferred; (b) on the other hand, on the 30th anniversary of the split-off of the entire inherited property; (c) on the 10th anniversary of the split-off of the inherited property, the Plaintiff was unable to divide the inherited property by the spouse’s split-off period; (d) on the 10th anniversary of the split-off of the inheritance tax and gift tax (amended by Act No. 916, Jan. 1, 2010). However, on the 10th anniversary of the split-off of the inheritance tax and gift tax, the Plaintiff filed a separate report on the split-off of the inherited property by 10th of May 31, 201; and (e) on the 10th of the 10th of the 2nd of May 2016th of the date the Plaintiff filed a separate report on the split-off of inherited property.

B) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) divided inherited property upon the agreement on division of inherited property with DD and EE, and entered the details thereof in the list of inherited property and assessment by inheritor; (b) among the Plaintiff’s inherited property indicated in the list of inherited property and assessment by inheritor, KRW 00,00,000 of the inherited property that is not required to be registered, registered, transferred, etc., should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property as the Plaintiff actually inherited pursuant to Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and (c) on November 30, 2012, the time limit for the division of inherited property by agreement with D and EE, the Plaintiff divided the amount of cash assets (deposits, securities deposits, insurance money, retirement allowances, etc.) that are not required to be registered, registered, transferred, etc., among inherited property (the spouse of the inheritee) by changing or cancelling the deposit contract under the name of the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff, the spouse of the inheritee, who actually inherited, should be entitled to be deducted from the taxable value of KRW 19.

C) Cash assets, such as deposit claims, retirement allowances claims, insurance claims, etc. among inherited property, were naturally divided according to the statutory shares of inheritance of the Plaintiff, DD and EE, a co-inheritors, on November 23, 2011, which was the date inheritance commences, and are not subject to the division of inherited property. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not file a separate separate action or report on the part of cash, among inherited property, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s statutory shares of inheritance among the cash assets should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property pursuant to Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “third assertion”).

2) Determination

A) The main sentence of Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the actual amount inherited by a spouse due to the death of a resident shall be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "where a spouse's inheritance deduction under paragraph (1) is divided (where registration, registration, transfer of title, etc. is required, it shall be limited to such registration, transfer of title; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the spouse within six months from the day after the date of division of inherited property under Article 67, and the time limit for division of inherited property (hereafter referred to as "the time limit for division of inherited property" in this Article), the heir shall report the division to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the time limit for division of inherited property." Article 19(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where the spouse's inheritance cannot be divided by the time limit for division of inherited property under paragraph (2) of the same Article, it shall be limited to cases where the spouse files a report on inevitable reason for division within 17 months."

B) As to the first argument

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the Constitutional Court held that the provision of this case does not conform with the Constitution on May 31, 2012. (2) The provision of this case continues to apply until the amendment is made by legislators on December 31, 2013 (the Constitutional Court Decision 2009HunBa190, hereinafter referred to as the "decision on inconsistency with the Constitution of this case"). According to the above facts, the provision of this case does not constitute "Article 47 (2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), since the provision of this case does not fall under "Article 47 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act concerning punishment of the spouse," the amendment of Article 47 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12141, Dec. 16, 2011).

C) As to the second argument

Considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 17-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including the relevant numbers), each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 16 (including the relevant numbers) and the circumstance alleged by the plaintiff alone, it is difficult to view that the division of the cash assets among the inherited property was made before November 30, 2012, which is the date on which the inheritance tax base is reported under the agreement of the plaintiff DD and EE, or the date on which the inheritance tax is reported under the agreement of the plaintiff, DD and EE, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The second argument is without merit.

(1) On April 19, 2012, DDR filed a claim against the Plaintiff for adjudication on the division of inherited property, including both the Plaintiff’s deposit claims, insurance money claims, retirement allowances claims, and cash assets, such as cash assets, etc., in which the Plaintiff filed a claim for adjudication on the division of inherited property. (B) DDR and EE filed a claim for adjudication on the division of inherited property against the Plaintiff on May 11, 2012.

(2) On May 25, 2012, SS was appointed as an acting representative of the Plaintiff EE’s legal act and property management rights, who was a minor.

(3) On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the heir could not divide the inherited property until the time due to the difference between heirs.

(4) From December 5, 2011 to March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff, DD and EE agreed to receive cash assets, such as deposits, insurance money, retirement allowances, etc., or change the name of the decedent in the name of the Plaintiff, but finally settle the amount finalized in the inherited property division trial.

(5) On May 23, 2013, the conciliation of division of inherited property, including cash assets, was concluded between the Plaintiff and DD and EE.

D) As to the third argument

(1) For the following reasons, a spouse’s inheritance deduction should be recognized under Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if there is no separate installment act or report thereon on inherited property subject to ex officio division at the time of commencement of inheritance.

(A) The institutional purport of the spouse’s inheritance deduction under Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to: (a) inheritance between the spouses is a horizontal transfer, not a transfer between households; and (b) ensure the life of the surviving spouse by dividing the couple’s joint property. As such, the statutory inheritance portion of the inherited property (if the actual inherited property falls short of it, up to the actual inherited property) is to impose tax at the time of the death

(B) Article 19(2) and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1981, Jan. 2, 2011) provides that “The inheritance tax shall not be levied on the part of the spouse who received the spouse’s inheritance deduction by dividing the inherited property with the shares of others, and shall not be levied on the part of the heir who received the spouse’s inheritance deduction.”

(C) Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is a requirement for restricting the spouse’s inheritance deduction under the main sentence of Article 19(2) of the same Act, appears to apply only to the property that needs separate division among inherited property by the time of division of the spouse’s inherited property. In addition, if the property is automatically divided according to the statutory inheritance at the time of commencement of inheritance, deeming that the spouse’s inheritance deduction is recognized as being the “amount actually inherited by the spouse” under the main sentence of Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is consistent with the system

(D) The legal provision of this case provides, “The spouse’s inheritance deduction shall apply only where the inherited property is divided and reported to the spouse’s inherited property by the due date of the split-off of the inherited property.” However, upon amendment to Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on January 1, 2010, the report on split-off of inherited property was excluded from the requirements of the spouse’s inheritance deduction. Such amendment was made to the effect that the spouse’s inheritance deduction application procedure is simplified in order to enhance the convenience of tax payment.

(2) Meanwhile, in a case where a claim, such as a monetary claim, is jointly inherited, the content of which is a divisible claim is divided and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of commencing the inheritance. Therefore, in principle, it cannot be an object of division of inherited property. However, in a case where there are special circumstances where a specific share of inheritance may vary from statutory share of inheritance, such as the existence of special benefits or recognition of a contributory portion, etc., the purport of Articles 1008 and 1008-2 of the Civil Act, and the equity among co-inheritors, etc., it shall be deemed that a divisible claim may be exceptionally subject to division of inherited property in light of the purport of Articles 108 and 108-

(3) Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by adding the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the pertinent numbers) to the entire purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s property value of 00,000,000 and DD, EE’s cash donation from the inheritee within 10 years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, which was donated by the inheritee within 10 years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, were added to the total amount of 00,000,000,000 property donated by the inheritee, which was donated by the inheritee within 10 years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, all co-inheritors are special beneficiaries; ② in view of the management and division of inherited property, there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and its children with respect to the management of inherited property and division of inherited property, the Plaintiff’s claim for the division of inherited property, including the Plaintiff’s right to attorney’s and the loss of property management, ③ the property division of inherited property.

(4) However, the adjustment on the division of inherited property, which was concluded on May 23, 2013, did not constitute the division of inherited property by November 30, 2012, which is the period for the division of inherited property. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff reported the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to divide inherited property by the time limit for the division of inherited property pursuant to Article 19(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 17(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the Defendant recognized such fact. Therefore, not the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s legal share of inherited property, but the amount of KRW 50 million under Article 19(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be deducted from the taxable

D. As to the existence of justifiable reasons for the reduction of and exemption from additional duties

1) The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the part on imposition of penalty tax among the instant disposition is unlawful.

A) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the inheritance tax base, and around May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff continued to file a lawsuit against the FFFF, and in light of the progress of the lawsuit pending and the financial status of the FFF, it is unclear whether to recover the instant claim. In light of such circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to file a return on the inheritance tax base including the total amount of the instant claim in the inherited property, and thus, there is justifiable reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the said obligation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

B) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was not only at the time of filing an inheritance tax return, but also on November 30, 2012, when the time of the split-off of the spouse’s inherited property, there was sufficient reason to recognize that cash assets among the entire inherited property were divided into the spouse’s inherited property. Since the adjudication on the split-off of inherited property regarding real estate, stocks, etc. is pending, there was no way to report the split-off of inherited property due to lack of legislation of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

In addition, the Defendant did not make a tax guidance that the Plaintiff should report the non-division of inherited property by November 30, 2012, which is the time limit for the split-off of inherited property. Even if the spouse’s inherited property is not divided by the time limit for the split-off of inherited property, there is justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to have failed to perform its obligations under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

2) Determination

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

Where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability prescribed by tax-related Acts without justifiable grounds, the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts are not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by tax-related Acts, while such sanctions are not unreasonable to deem that the taxpayer did not know his/her duty, and thus, it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty or to expect the relevant party to fulfill his/her duty, and thus, it should be imposed as to the failure to perform his/her duty under tax law unless there are justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1622, Apr. 28, 2011).

B) Examining the facts found based on the above legal doctrine, it appears that the Plaintiff did not report the instant claim as inherited property and did not report the fact that the spouse could not divide the inherited property to the Defendant due to inevitable reasons by the time limit for the division of inherited property, etc. It appears that it merely knew or erroneous. The evidence submitted to this court and the circumstance asserted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that there is a justifiable reason not to cause the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty to report and pay inheritance tax. The Plaintiff’

E. Ex officio determination

1) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition, the determination of whether the tax disposition is unlawful should be made by whether the amount of the tax assessed exceeds the legitimate tax amount. Thus, even if the tax authority erred in the process of calculating and determining the tax base and tax amount, and thus, even if the tax disposition is unlawful, if the tax amount imposed and collected does not exceed the scope of the legitimate tax amount, and if the erroneous method does not vary in the scope of the tax unit and the reason for the disposition, the taxation disposition within the scope of the legitimate tax amount is unlawful and does not have to be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3823, Jun.

2) As seen earlier, the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount to be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property is 50 million won. Since the Defendant issued the instant disposition with the spouse’s deduction amount of KRW 00,000,000, the instant disposition is erroneous in calculating the tax base and tax amount. However, the amount of KRW 0,000,000, which is the inheritance tax amount of the instant disposition, does not exceed the limit of the amount of the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount of KRW 500,000,000, which is a legitimate tax amount calculated with the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount of KRW 500,000,000 (the amount of the inheritance tax on the second disposition), the defect does not vary from the scope of the taxable unit and the grounds for the disposition, and thus the instant disposition

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition with respect to the burden of charge.