The account of this case is managed by the decedent in the name of the plaintiff.

The issue amount to the account managed by the decedent in the name of the plaintiff is that the decedent donated to the plaintiffs, and it is donated property in advance.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap65613 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

KimAA et al.

○ Head of tax office

August 23, 2017

September 20, 2017

1. Inheritance tax amounting to KRW 0,000,000,000, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs on September 11, 2012 (additional tax for unfaithful payment)

00,000,000 won for additional tax returns of KRW 000,000 for additional tax returns of KRW 000,000 for additional tax returns of KRW 00,000 for tax assessment

In excess of (including additional tax of KRW 00,000,000 and additional tax of KRW 000,000)

The part shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 14/15 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Inheritance taxing KRW 0,000,000,000 (additional tax for unfaithful payment) paid by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on September 11, 2012

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 and additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 000,000 shall be revoked (including the case of this case)

In the claim of the complaint, the sum of the amount of the above disposition imposing inheritance tax shall be KRW 0,000,000.

Although it is re-established, it is obvious that it is a clerical error of KRW 0,000,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiffs’ gift tax and inheritance tax return and payment

1) The Plaintiff KimA is the wife of ParkBB, who died on March 16, 201, and the Plaintiff ParkCC, ParkD, and ParkE are children of ParkB.

2) On November 22, 2010, Plaintiff Park Jong-D Co., Ltd. prepared a gift agreement stating that “Plaintiff Park Young-chul donated KRW 0,000,000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant financial property”) among the claims, etc. deposited in the account (GG Securities Co., Ltd. to HH Securities Co., Ltd. and II Investment Securities Co., Ltd. to FF Securities Co., Ltd.) under the name of Plaintiff Park Young-CC and ParkE, at the time of Plaintiff Park Jong-E Co., Ltd. on November 22, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant financial property”), Plaintiff Park Jong-D’s gift tax was KRW 0,00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000.

3) On September 30, 201, the Plaintiffs reported and paid KRW 0,000,000,000 of inheritance tax to the Defendant with the value of inherited property ParkB’s inherited property as KRW 0,000,000,000, excluding the instant financial property.

B. The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff ParkD, ParkCC, and Park E

1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service conducted an inheritance tax investigation of ParkB, and as a result, "the result" of the case.

The actual manager of the account and the actual owner of the financial property of this case are ParkBB, and the donor of each gift to ParkCC and ParkE on November 22, 2010 is not the plaintiff ParkB, but the donor of each gift to the plaintiff ParkB. After each gift, the donor of each gift of this case was 0,000,000,000 won (=0,000,000 -0,000,000,000 won -0,000,000 won -0,000,000,000 won) and then notified the defendant of taxation data containing the above contents (Evidence 2).

2) On August 22, 2012, the Defendant revoked the gift tax reported and paid by Plaintiff ParkCC and ParkE, and on November 22, 2010, on the ground that “LB donated each of the instant financial property to Plaintiff GambD, ParkCC, and ParkE (hereinafter “Plaintiff GambD”) (hereinafter “instant donation”), the Defendant determined and notified Plaintiff GambD, etc. (hereinafter “instant gift tax”) of the gift tax on the amount donated each of the instant financial property (hereinafter “instant gift tax”).

3) On April 4, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for the gift tax (2013Guhap62275, hereinafter “prior judgment”) by asserting that the instant financial property was the Plaintiff’s property from the beginning to the date, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the gift tax imposition by asserting that the instant financial property was the Plaintiff’s property. On September 24, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (2013Guhap6275, hereinafter “prior judgment”). Accordingly, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (2014Nu47961, Sept. 24, 2014) on September 24, 2014; however, the Supreme Court filed a final judgment on June 15, 2017 (No. 2014Du42728, Jun. 15, 2017).

C. The defendant's decision of correction and notification of inheritance tax on the plaintiffs

1) On November 22, 2010, the Defendant decided that ParkB donated the instant financial property to the Plaintiff ParkD, ParkCC, and ParkE on November 22, 2010. On September 11, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of revised inheritance tax and notice of revised decision (including the additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 000,000,000,000,000 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is calculated on the basis of the taxable value of inherited property.)

2) On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the imposition of the above inheritance tax, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 27, 2012. On March 25, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on May 6, 2013 to the effect that the disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case was 00,000,000 won as the reported tax credit amount, and that the remaining claims are dismissed (Evidence 2 of this Article).

3) According to the above decision of adjudication, the defendant corrected the determined amount of the disposition of this case to KRW 0,000,000,000, which was reduced by the reported amount of tax at the previous 0,000,000,000. Of the disposition of this case, the defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 0,000,000 (including additional tax for unfaithful payment, KRW 00,000,000,000, additional tax for negligent return, and KRW 0,000,000, which was the amount obtained by deducting the amount of tax paid at the above determined amount of tax from the above determined amount of tax (Evidence No. 1).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, and Gap evidence 5

- 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4, each of the statements, pleadings

The purport of the whole

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The owner of the financial property of this case, which was deposited in the account of this case, is not ParkBB, but the Plaintiff ParkCC, the nominal owner of the said account, and the amount transferred from the said account to ParkE on November 22, 2010, is also the property that Plaintiff Park Young-soo and ParkE donated to Plaintiff Park Young-soo and ParkE. The adjudication court of the judgment of this case ruled that the actual owner of the instant account was ParkBB, but it was erroneous in the judgment of this case and did not have res judicata effect.

The instant disposition based on the premise that the financial property of this case is the inherited property of ParkB is unlawful.

2) Even though the actual owner of the instant account was ParkBB, the amount of KRW 0,00,000,000, which remains in the instant account at the time of ParkB’s death, should be included in the inherited property of ParkB and subject to the inheritance deduction of financial property. Since the Defendant did not engage in the inheritance deduction of financial property (200,000,000,000,000 won) regarding the remaining amount, the portion regarding the financial property of the instant disposition is unlawful.

3) Since the instant account was managed in the name of Plaintiff ParkD for 27 years, the instant financial property is deemed or presumed to have been owned by Plaintiff ParkD. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs could not confirm the owner of the instant financial property before the instant judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the part on imposition of additional tax among the instant disposition is unlawful, since there were justifiable grounds for not filing an inheritance tax report on the instant financial property with the Plaintiffs.

4) The Defendant imposed the additional tax on Plaintiff Park DoD on KRW 0,00,000,000, which remains in the instant account, while imposing the instant gift tax, and imposed the additional tax on negligent tax returns again while rendering the instant disposition to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the part on imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax returns in the instant case is unlawful.

5) Since the Plaintiffs reported and paid gift tax on part of the financial property of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of evading national taxes, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have underreported the tax base equivalent to the financial property of the instant case by unlawful means. Therefore, the Defendant’s application of the tax rate for unfair underreporting penalty (40%) under Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination as to the assertion that the owner of the financial property of this case is the Plaintiff (the above A-A-1)

1) Although the court of the lawsuit of the administrative litigation is not bound by the fact-finding of other administrative trials, the facts established in the relevant administrative litigation are not significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, barring any special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation, the facts opposed thereto cannot be acknowledged, and in particular, the facts that form the basis of the dispute are identical to those of the two previous and previous administrative litigation, but the same is more true in the case where a new claim can be filed as a result that does not conflict with the res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du292, Jun. 23, 2016).

1. On June 20, 1985, the instant account was opened at a point of 000,000 GG securities, and deposited KRW 00,000,000 from GGB, and used to acquire J electronic shares 00,000 and KG 00,000 shares. Since several times, the account number was changed and the account was divided by operating assets (stocks/bonds) was integrated into the LL investment securities total account. At the same time, the instant account was operated as investing in state bonds, such as J electronic shares and national housing bonds, as of November 22, 2010.

2) In this case, the Defendant imposed the gift tax of this case on the following facts on the grounds that the ParkB, an actual owner of the instant financial property, donated the instant financial property to Plaintiff ParkD, etc. on November 22, 2010. ② Plaintiff ParkBD filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing the gift tax, but the Seoul Administrative Court rendered the instant prior judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 4, 2014. The facts that the said prior judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2017 are recognized in the foregoing subparagraphs 1-C and 3). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) In the process of the judgment of the preceding judgment, Plaintiff Park DoD alleged that the instant financial property owner of the instant financial property is Park DoD, not ParkBB, but rather Plaintiff Park DoD in light of the following: (a) in the process of the judgment of the instant financial property, the instant financial property was in the name of Plaintiff Park DoD after verifying actual names; and (b) even if the instant financial property was owned by Park BB, the amount remaining in the instant account (the amount donated to Plaintiff Park DoD) cannot be deemed to have been donated as of November 22, 201, and thus, the instant disposition imposing the gift tax was unlawful.

B) After recognizing the following facts based on the evidence submitted by the Seoul Administrative Court, based on the above facts, etc., “the instant account was opened and managed by ParkB, and the owner of the instant financial property was also ParkB. On November 22, 2010, ParkB rendered a donation of the total amount of the said financial property to ParkBD, etc., and sentenced the instant prior judgment.

2. According to the "Entrusteder Account Management Book prepared on May 25, 1991 in GG securities, an account was opened in the name of Plaintiff KimA, ParkCC, ParkDD, and ParkB, respectively. In addition, the book is the same, and the number of accounts in the names of the Plaintiffs and ParkB is connected in order to 120775, 120776, 1207776, and 1207777.

3. At the time, Plaintiff Park Dong-D’s domicile was “00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 0000 - 0000 - which is his domicile on the name of ParkBB’s resident registration, and after the implementation of the financial real name system, the seal affixed on the “securities (stocks) savings application and the confirmation document prepared by the Plaintiff’s account opened on September 25, 1995, is identical with the seal affixed on the said truster’s account management ledger.

4. The phrase “application for opening an account” of the LL investment securities account directly opened on November 17, 2010 is not only different from the trustor’s account management ledger under the above Plaintiff’s name, “securities (stocks) savings application and confirmation document,” and the seal affixed on the “application for opening an account” (the same as the seal affixed on the “application for opening an account”) but also different from the seal affixed thereon (the same as the seal affixed on the “application for opening an account”).

5. J electronic stocks of April 14, 2005 from the account number 00, one of the instant accounts.

A substitute table drawn up at the time of withdrawal by account number of 000-000 to the account number of 000-0000

It is different from the ‘application for opening an account' of LL-Investment Securities account.

6. On July 23, 2007, the account of this case was transferred in KRW 00,000 to another account of the plaintiff on July 23, 2007 except for those transferred in KRW 00,00

Although there was no cash deposit and withdrawal transaction, there was a cash deposit and withdrawal transaction since November 22, 2010. On the other hand, on July 23, 2007, KRW 00,000 out of KRW 00,000,000 from the instant account to the other accounts of Plaintiff BD, and KRW 2,80,000 per month from January 27, 2011, and deposited in June 23, 2011, Plaintiff BD, ParkCC, and Park E-E respectively. On the other hand, the cash deposit and withdrawal transaction was made after November 22, 2010, respectively. On the other hand, on the other hand, from the instant account to the account of Plaintiff BD’s other accounts of Plaintiff BD, KRW 0,000,000,000 was remitted from the same day to the account of Plaintiff BB, and the remaining KRW 00,000,000 next day, Plaintiff NM 27,74,700.

C) At the appellate court of the above preceding judgment, Plaintiff Park Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

D) Accordingly, the Plaintiff Park Jae-D appealed and appealed. On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (2014Du42728) by deeming that there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on presumption of gift under tax law, the financial real name system, etc.

3) In the above facts, the plaintiffs asserted that "in this case, the owner of the financial property of this case is the plaintiff Park Do, and the plaintiff Park Do, Park CC, and Park E, donated part of the financial property to the plaintiff Park Do, on November 22, 2010." ② The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs Park Dob was all presented during the judgment of the above preceding judgment, and there is no other circumstance to recognize that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the above preceding judgment. ③ The plaintiff Park Dob was donated KRW 00,000,000 as 0,000,000 won as 25 years after investing in shares and bonds from Park DobB, but it was hard to recognize the plaintiff Park Dob as 20,000,000 won as 0,000,0000 won, and the plaintiff Park Dob opened the above account under the name of 12,002,00,000.

D. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the deduction of financial property [the above A-2]

Article 22(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that where inheritance commences due to the death of a resident, if the value calculated by subtracting financial obligations prescribed by Presidential Decree from the value of the financial property prescribed by Presidential Decree as of the date the inheritance commences exceeds 20,000 won, the larger amount between the value of the relevant net financial property and the value of the financial property as of the date the inheritance commences shall be deducted from the taxable value of the inherited property, but if the amount exceeds 20,000,000 won, it shall be deducted from the taxable value

On November 22, 201, 201, before ParkB’s death, all of the financial property of this case was donated to Park Do, etc., the children of this case, and according to the evidence No. 1 of this case, according to the records No. 1 of this case, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant, while disposing of this case, deducted KRW 200 million from the value of the inherited property of ParkB, as the inheritance deduction of the financial property (No. 9 through 11 of the evidence No. 1 of this case). The above facts of recognition

According to the records, the financial property of this case is a property donated to Plaintiff Park DoD, etc. before the date of commencing the inheritance.

Inherited property included in the subject of deduction of financial assets under Article 22(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

It does not constitute value, and even if the financial property of this case remains in the account of this case,

Even though KRW 0,00,000,000 is an inherited property of ParkB, in this case where the inheritance deduction of the financial property was already made up of the limit of the deduction (200,000 won), there is no amount to apply the inheritance deduction of the financial property. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit without further review.

E. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of additional tax is unlawful [the above-mentioned A-3-5]

1) Part on the assertion that there are justifiable grounds for not imposing additional tax

Article 48(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no additional tax shall be imposed if a taxpayer has justifiable grounds for non-performance of his/her obligation." In order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed, as prescribed by the Act, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to become unaware of his/her obligation due to a conflict of opinion due to a mere go beyond the scope of legal sites or misunderstandings, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligation due to a conflict of opinion due to the significance in tax interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du4711, Oct. 27, 2016).

In addition to the facts acknowledged in the preceding judgment of this case (C. 2) from the time when the first connection account was established until November 22, 201, ParkB had been opened and managed by borrowing the Plaintiff ParkB from the name of the Plaintiff ParkB, and on November 22, 201, ParkB donated the instant financial property to Plaintiff ParkB, etc., which was deposited in the said account under the name of the tea on November 22, 2011, as seen above (C). In addition to the facts acknowledged in the preceding judgment of this case (C. 2) in the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the wife and children of ParkB (Plaintiffs) knew that the instant financial property of this case was the name of the tea of ParkB. Accordingly, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant financial property of this case was not reported and paid the inheritance tax including the inheritance tax of ParkB, and there was no reason to prove otherwise.

2) The portion claiming that the additional tax on negligent tax returns was imposed twice

In case where the additional tax is imposed on the additional tax due to the failure to report the gift tax, and the additional tax is not imposed on the donated property to be added to the taxable value of inherited property at the time of the return, it is illegal to impose double burdens on the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1361, Jul. 25, 1997). However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in the evidence No. 1, the fact that the additional tax amount among the disposition in this case is calculated by deducting the amount of the additional tax on negligent tax from the total amount of the inheritance tax in KRW 5,261,837,579, which is the amount calculated by deducting the amount of the gift tax already paid by the plaintiffs in relation to the financial property in this case from the total amount of the inheritance tax in KRW 3,249,780,000,000, which is the amount calculated by deducting the amount of the additional tax on negligent tax from the total calculated tax amount, so long as the defendant calculated and imposed the additional tax on negligent tax amount in this case.

3) The part on the assertion that the application of an unfair underreporting penalty rate is unlawful

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 47-3 (1) (main sentence) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "where the tax base reported by a taxpayer falls short of the tax base to be reported under tax-related Acts, calculated tax amount 】 (amount equivalent to underreported tax base / tax base among the tax bases) 】 10/100 】 added to the payable tax amount." Article 47-3 (2) of the same Act provides that "in cases where there are the underreported tax base in an unjust manner, the amount calculated 】 tax amount 】 [amount equivalent to illegally underreported tax base (unfairly underreported tax base) / total tax base) 】 (40/100) 】 (amount of tax calculated) 】 (tax base - unfair tax base) 】 (tax base) 】 (10/100) (

In light of the legislative intent, etc. of the above provisions, in a case where the return of tax base by illegal means is filed by such active acts as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirements for the national tax or making it difficult to discover false facts, and where the return of tax base is filed by such unlawful acts, it shall be deemed that the return was derived from the purpose of tax evasion, such as the avoidance of progressive tax rates and the application of the provisions on loss brought forward.

B) Whether the application of an unfair under-reported additional tax rate is legitimate

LBB donated the instant financial property, which was held in the name of tea on November 22, 201, to the Plaintiff Park Do, etc. as seen in the above Section C. The following facts are as follows: (a) Plaintiff Park Do, etc.: (b) written each donation contract on November 22, 2010, stating that “Plaintiff Park Do,” donated KRW 0,000,000,000 among the instant financial property to Plaintiff Park Do, Park Do,” and (c) Plaintiff Park Do, Park E reported and paid gift tax on the basis of the said donation contract; (b) the fact that the Plaintiffs reported and paid gift tax to the Defendant with only the portion of the instant financial property, excluding the instant financial property, out of the inherited property of Park DoB’s inherited property, was recognized as having been recognized in the above 1.1.2) and 3).

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs prepared each gift contract of November 22, 2010 with the intent to evade part of the inheritance tax on the 0,000,000,000 won and the inheritance tax on the remaining property other than the financial property of this case from the beginning of ParkB, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs omitted a report on the tax base of the inheritance tax on the financial property of this case from the purpose of tax evasion. It is reasonable to deem that the defendant applied the unfair under-reported additional tax (40%) as stipulated in Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C) Calculation of a reasonable amount of negligent tax returns

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 1 evidence Nos. 2 and 1, the taxable value of the inheritance tax for which the plaintiffs originally reported and paid is KRW 0,000,000,000, the tax base is KRW 0,000,000, and the tax base is KRW 0,000,000 for the calculated tax amount (per 10,000,000 among evidence No. 2). ② The taxable value of the inheritance tax of this case is KRW 00,00,000 for the inherited property of this case x the original taxable value + the tax base is 00,000,000,000 for the total calculated tax amount, the total calculated tax amount is 0,000,000,000 for the above calculated tax amount = 00,000,000 for the calculated tax amount x 10,000,00 for the wrongfully reported tax amount x x 10,0000.

(3) It can be acknowledged that the Defendant calculated the additional tax on negligent tax returns as KRW 000,00,000,000 by deducting the amount of gift tax paid in relation to the financial property of this case from the amount of gift tax amount of KRW 0,000,000,000,000.

(2) According to the above facts, the total tax base is 00,000,000,000, and the illegally underreported tax base is 00,000,000,000,000 (=total tax base is 00,000,000,000,000), and the calculated tax amount is 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 of the calculated tax amount reported and paid by the plaintiffs. Thus, it is clear that the amount of the wrongfully underreported tax to be paid by the plaintiffs is 00,00,000,00 as shown below [the amount of the wrongfully underreporting the disposition of this case is the amount calculated based on the calculated tax amount (0,00,000,000,000) prior to the defendant’s decision of correction]

(3) The imposition of additional tax on negligent tax returns in this case is justifiable within the scope of KRW 000,000,000, and the portion exceeding the above amount shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is without merit, and each of them is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.