early 209 middle 4221 (2010.04.01)

The receipt value of immovables appropriated for payment in kind shall be determined the value of the inherited property.

Although there is a provision that the value of the real estate appropriated for payment in kind should be the value of the inherited property, the disposition that determines the value of the land based on the officially assessed individual land price

2010Guhap9076 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for payment in kind.

1.The A2. OilB3.SCC 4.ND5.E

○ Head of tax office

December 16, 201

January 13, 201

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiffs on April 9, 2009 as KRW 1,567,550,000, the amount of receipt of KRW 349-41 large 1,465 square meters, ○○-si, 349-41 large 1,465 square meters, which was revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 23, 2008, the Plaintiffs received inheritance of real estate and financial assets, such as ○○○○○○-dong 349-33 land (hereinafter “Mono land”) due to the death of the decedent ○○○○○-dong 349-33 (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”).

B. On January 23, 2009, the plaintiffs assessed the 1,465 square meters of the above land (the above 1,465 square meters of the above 1,465 square meters was divided into 1,465 square meters of the above 349-41 square meters on February 12, 2009, and the above 349-41 square meters of the above 349-41 square meters on January 1, 2008, and applied for payment in kind in accordance with the officially assessed land price as of January 1, 2008.

C. On April 9, 2009, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to change the property to other property paid in kind that can be managed and disposed of on the ground that the management and disposal of the property applied for payment in kind is inappropriate and the value of the property has been significantly reduced after the division than before the division.

D. On July 6, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed an objection against the order of change with the director of the Central Regional Tax Office. On October 1, 2009, the director of the Central District Tax Office decided to determine the value of the instant land received based on the officially assessed individual land price, which is expected to be published, on October 31, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On December 3, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on the basis of the publicly assessed individual land price prior to the subdivision. However, the Plaintiffs were dismissed on April 1, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Pursuant to Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of the instant land received shall be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 2008, which was the date of commencing the inheritance (hereinafter referred to as “principal”).

(2) Even if the value of the instant land was determined in a divided state as the instant disposition, in order to comply with the purport of Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”), the total value of the instant land shall be calculated in a way that is proportional to the publicly notified individual land price after the division of the four parcels divided from the said land, according to the publicly notified individual land price after the division of the four parcels divided from the said land (hereinafter “principal 2”).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the assertion No. 1

According to Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the value of the real estate that is appropriated for payment in kind shall be the value of inherited property except as otherwise provided in each subparagraph. However, as seen earlier, the land which was inherited to the plaintiffs on July 23, 2008, but the disposition of this case was subsequently determined on the value of the land of this case divided from the land located in the original land based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2009. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the land falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and there is no other ground for law to determine the value of the land received according to the defendant's standard. Accordingly, the argument 1 has merit.

(2) Sub-determination

Therefore, without any further examination as to the claim ② The instant disposition is unlawful (However, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5-2 of the instant lawsuit, the land of this case is mostly abutting on the road, but the land of this case is 5 meters away on the road; the officially assessed land price at the time of commencing the inheritance of the mother land is 1,60,000/m2; and the first officially assessed land price after the subdivision of the instant land, which was made on February 12, 2009, after being divided from the mother land, is 1,070,000/m2. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it may be sufficiently anticipated that the price of the instant land, which was presumed to be divided compared to the mother land at the time of the instant application for the permission for payment in kind, is considerably lower than the price of the land of this case that was paid in kind.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each claim of the plaintiffs of this case is justified and accepted.