Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2525 (No. 27, 2010)

money borrowed from other persons without compensation therefor;

It is difficult to believe the contents of the certificate of custody of deposit on the deposit basis as it is, and the key amount is the money that is loaned from others without compensation, and the disposition imposed by adding the amount of interest and amount equivalent thereto to the taxable amount of inheritance tax is legitimate

2010Guhap46234 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing inheritance tax

Gyeong Kim

O Head of tax office

March 31, 2011

April 21, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 3,380,178 equivalent to the amount equivalent to the interest equivalent to the rental deposit of a house shall be revoked among KRW 12,913,150 equivalent to the amount of the loan imposed by the Defendant by adding the loan to the Plaintiff as the taxable value of the inherited property on May 1, 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was the inheritor of the father KimB who died on October 2, 2008, and on April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 2,59,090 as inheritance tax by including KRW 150,000,000 among the financial assets of KimB of KimB (hereinafter “instant issues amount”) in the taxable amount of inheritance tax as a loan to the Plaintiff.

B. On March 1, 2010, in the inheritance tax investigation on KimB, the date when the issue amount of the instant case was deemed to have been leased from KimB to the Plaintiff, and the amount equivalent to the recognized interest shall be KRW 12,913,151, and 37,338,254, including other omissions in filing a report, was added to the taxable amount of inheritance taxes and notified the Defendant thereof. Accordingly, on May 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 12,531,370 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

“On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on April 9, 2010 to the effect that the amount equivalent to the interest accrued after December 10, 2007, among the above recognized interest amounts, should be excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance tax, but the Defendant filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on April 28, 2010, for a non-adopted decision on July 27, 2010, which was made by KimB around December 10, 2007, for a tax appeal against the Plaintiff, which was made on July 27, 2010, but the KimB was converted from the Plaintiff to the pre-sale deposit, which was owned by the Plaintiff, and was written on July 10, 2010, with evidence Nos. 631-1, FF apartment 11, 2504 (hereinafter referred to as the “the apartment of this case”). However, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the purport of the submission of evidence No. 1, evidence No. 271, and evidence No.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 2, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired the apartment house of this case from March 25, 199 to the parent of this case. From March 25, 199 to the apartment of this case, KimB and MasiG were allowed to reside on the apartment of this case. around July 13, 2007 due to the financing shortage of the individual hospital it operated, KimB borrowed KRW 30 million from KimB and KRW 125 million on November 1, 2007, and repaid KRW 100,000 on November 13, 2007 to the Plaintiff on November 13, 2007. However, the Plaintiff’s KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from the inheritance tax amount of KRW 105,50,000,000,000,000,000 from the inheritance tax amount of KRW 105,50,000,000,00.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 10-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including the serial number) of the above evidence Nos. 2, 10-2, and 10-2, which were only the above evidence No. 3B, the plaintiff did not appear to have been in the taxable amount of inheritance tax after recognizing the key amount at the time of the initial return of inheritance tax as the loan No. 1, 209, and it was difficult to view that the plaintiff's money No. 2, 700,000,000 won (the evidence No. 3, No. 30-1, Nov. 1, 2007) was not in possession of the above money No. 1, 200,000 won, which were no more than 00,000 won before the date of the lease contract No. 1, 200,000 won, which were not in possession of the above money No. 10-B.

(2) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case imposing inheritance tax on the Plaintiff by including the amount equivalent to 12,913,151 won equivalent to the interest on the issue amount in question in the taxable amount of inheritance tax, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.