Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap17080 (2010.09)

National Tax Service Review 2007-003 (O25, 2008)

disposition to include the remittance amount of a public corporation in the taxable value of inherited property is illegal;

The amount of money transferred to a public-service corporation by the deceased and the intervenors within 6 months from the date of commencing the inheritance is donated to the public-service corporation, and as long as the heirs agree with each other through the report of the tax base of inheritance, the amount of money transferred to the public-service corporation should be deducted

2010Nu34981 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

- Appellants

Maximum XX

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap17080 decided September 9, 2010

September 20, 2011

October 18, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance court shall be modified upon a request made by a change in the trial as follows:

A. On January 15, 2007, the part that exceeds KRW 115,20,892 among the inheritance tax imposition disposition of KRW 424,029,180 against the Plaintiff; the part that exceeds KRW 282,601,330 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in each disposition of KRW 282,60,601,330 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in each disposition of KRW 67,757,93 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in each case; the part that exceeds KRW 100,467,863 for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in each case; and the part that exceeds KRW 127,194,391 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in each case is revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is 10%, the remainder is 10% of the part arising from the Defendant’s participation, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The part that exceeds KRW 108,907,469 among the inheritance tax imposition disposition of KRW 424,029,180 against the Plaintiff on January 15, 2007, and the part that exceeds KRW 282,601,330 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, among the inheritance tax imposition disposition of KRW 282,60,601,330 against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the part that exceeds KRW 65,196,449 (the Plaintiff extended the amount of revocation claim against the part of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor at the trial against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor), and the part that exceeds KRW 72,583,203, as to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Ga, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part concerning the remittance amount of a public-service corporation in the first instance court's 5th to 20th 6th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

2. The part to be mard;

“(2) As to the remittance of the instant public interest corporation

(A) At around 1990, the deceased promised that the maximum DD would make cash of the church head, in the future, at the time of entering into the meeting XX, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the heir of the deceased, provided that they only contributed 50 million won to the meeting of the head of XX, and agreed to contribute 1.5 billion won as the construction contribution to the meeting of the head of XX, among those who failed to comply with the said commitment, around January 30, 2003. Accordingly, a donation contract or private donation contract was established between the deceased and the head of XX, and the amount of the remittance of the instant public interest corporation should not be excluded from the taxable value of inheritance because the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the heir of the deceased, paid to the head of XX, the other party to the above contract, was not subject to inheritance.

(B) Even if the deceased and the heir were not to be deemed to have established the above donation contract or private donation contract, and even if the heir did not agree with the heir to contribute the amount of the remittance of the public interest corporation of this case, it is impossible for the heir to contribute a large amount exceeding KRW 1.5 billion to the K K K K K K K K K KU within the shorter period of three months from March 18, 2003 to June 10 of the same year after the deceased’s death, and on the premise that the heir’s aforementioned contribution is valid, the heir jointly reported the inheritance tax standard on August 1, 2003, excluding the inheritance tax assessment standard on the premise that the above contribution was jointly reported, and thus, on August 1, 2003, the date on which the tax base return was filed, the heir, the heir, and the Intervenor, made a joint contribution agreement with the public interest corporation of this case with respect to the remittance amount between the plaintiff and the public interest corporation of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the intervenor, who are the inheritor of the deceased, contributed the remittance amount to the public interest corporation of this case to the Council of the Republic of Korea, a public interest corporation, within six months from February 9, 2003, the date of commencing the inheritance, and thus, the disposition of this case reported differently is unlawful.

D. Determination as to the assertion on the remittance amount of the instant public interest corporation

(1) As to the first argument

(4) If the deceased agreed to give a large amount of 1.5 billion won through the above evidence and the facts acknowledged as follows: (i) if the deceased agreed to give a gift amount of 1.5 billion won to the 6 billion won between the deceased and the 1.5 billion won, it is difficult to acknowledge the degree of the document signed by the deceased or the 6.5 billion won prior to their admission to the 1.5 billion won, and (ii) if it is difficult to recognize the degree of credibility of the 1.5 billion won prior to their admission to the 19.7 billion won, it is difficult to acknowledge that the 1.5 billion won of the 6.5 billion won of the deceased’s admission to the 6.5 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 3rd of the 19.7 billion won of the 19.7 billion won of the 3rd of the 19.5 billion won of the 19.

Therefore, the first argument of the plaintiff and the intervenor on the premise that a donation contract or a private donation contract has been concluded between the deceased and the KLLI.

(2) As to the second argument

According to Articles 16(1) and 67(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 13(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where the inherited property is contributed within six months from the date the inheritance commences, it shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property as property contributed by a public-service corporation.

However, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor remitted the remittance amount to the public-service corporation to the public-service corporation meeting from March 18, 2003 to June 10, 2003, which was within 6 months from February 9, 2003, the date of commencing the inheritance. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor also excluded the remittance amount to the public-service corporation from the taxable value of the inheritance tax and filed an inheritance tax return on the ground that the remittance amount to the public-service corporation jointly belongs to the property contributed to the public-service corporation meeting XX, a public-service corporation. As seen above, if the transferred amount to the public-service corporation was transferred to the public-service corporation meeting, and the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, who are the inheritor of the deceased, jointly filed a tax base return excluding the inheritance tax return from the taxable value of the inheritance tax, was filed against the above inheritor’s intent, barring any special circumstances, such as the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s transfer amount was made at the time of the above report.

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 500 million to the Intervenor on July 1, 2003, which was later remitted to the Intervenor, on or after June 10, 2003; and (b) received refund of KRW 500 million from the Intervenor Park Jong-chul during the period from October 7, 2004 to January 5, 2005, which was immediately after the commencement of the inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiff et al.; and (b) as such, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of remittance, which is inherited property of the Deceased, was partially paid to the Intervenor Park Jong-chul, was not a separate loan and its repayment from the amount of remittance that was claimed by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of money transferred to the Intervenor Park Jong-chul, which was not a public corporation of the deceased, was not a part of the money transferred to the Intervenor Park 5,0000,000 won to the Intervenor Park 5,000,000.

Therefore, within six months from February 9, 2003, the date of commencing the inheritance, the deceased and the intervenors were donated to a public corporation with respect to the remittance amount of the instant public corporation inherited by the deceased and the intervenors, and the heir’s consent was reached through the return of the inheritance tax base, the remittance amount of the instant public corporation should be deducted from the taxable value of the inherited property. Thus, the part regarding which the remittance amount of the instant disposition included in the taxable value of the inherited property is unlawful.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, in the disposition of this case by the Defendant, it is unlawful that the portion exceeding 150,00,000 won exceeds 695,029,926 won, namely, the sum of 1,300,105,162 won and 1,95,135,088 won (695,029,926 won + 1.300,105,162 won) should be included in the taxable value of the inheritance. Thus, if the amount of the inheritance tax is calculated by deducting the above 1,995,135,08 won from the taxable value of the inheritance tax, the sum of the inheritance tax amount of the Plaintiff and the intervenors due to the death of the deceased shall be 410,621,139 won, and the sum of the inheritance tax amount of the above inheritance tax amount of the Intervenor shall be 15,208,135,929,736,79,710,79,747,79,76,79,7,7,7139,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the inheritance tax imposition disposition of KRW 424,029,180 against the plaintiff which exceeds KRW 115,20,892 among the inheritance tax imposition disposition of KRW 424,029,180 against the plaintiff, the part exceeding KRW 67,757,93 against the intervenor in the imposition disposition of KRW 282,60,60 against the intervenor, and the part exceeding KRW 100,467,863 against the intervenor ParkB, and the part exceeding KRW 127,194,391 against the intervenor in the imposition disposition of KRW 424,029,180 against the intervenor, shall be revoked, respectively. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed due to the lack of any reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is improper by accepting part of the plaintiff's appeal and it is so decided as per Disposition of the first instance court's judgment.