beta
Case Number of the previous trial
Seocho 2015west 5666 (Law No. 17, 2016)
decedents;
Of the amounts withdrawn from the account, the amount reported to the customs office of Japan shall be objectively clear from the place of use.
Summary
Since it is recognized that the amount withdrawn from the account of the decedent of this case entered Japan through fraud, it is obvious that the place of use is objectively clear, limited to the amount reported to the customs office of Japan, and accordingly, the amount reported to the customs office of Japan should be excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes of the portion taxable as estimated inherited property.
Related statutes
Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Presumption of Inheritance of Property Disposed before Commencement of Inheritance)
Cases
2016Guhap75562 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax
Plaintiff
○ Kim
Defendant
AA Head of the Tax Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 2, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
November 16, 2017
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,617,148,572 on October 2, 2015 on the part exceeding the amount indicated “2. Political Tax Amount” and KRW 1,617,638,600 of the inheritance tax imposition disposition on the Plaintiff, and KRW 1,617,572 of the inheritance tax imposition disposition on the Plaintiff.
Each excess part shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.
Cheong-gu Office
Each disposition of imposition on the Plaintiff, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○ on October 2, 2015, shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition on the inheritance tax specified in attached Form 1-1. Each disposition of imposition on the Plaintiff shall be revoked on October 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 23, 2006, deceased on May 23, 2006, the deceased Kim○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased’s heir, who is the spouse of the deceased, is the Plaintiff, Kim○-○ (the married children), Kim○, Kim○ (the married children), Kim○ (the Kim○), and Kim○ (the deceased children), and the inheritor did not separately report the inheritance tax.
B. The director of the regional tax office has conducted an inheritance tax investigation, etc. on the decedent from March 26, 2015 to August 17, 2015. As a result, the decedent sold 317,449 shares of the deceased's 0 bank account from September 7, 2004 to the 15th of the same month, and distributed 6,464,906,845 shares of the deceased's 6,45,000 won which was withdrawn on September 20, 204 (hereinafter referred to as "stock disposal disposition of this case") and then deducted 6,45,000 won from 20,000 won before the commencement of inheritance (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Sep. 20, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 20630,96, May 16, 2006) from the original amount of the deceased's account; Presidential Decree No. 20160, Jan. 6, 2001.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 9, 2015. While the Defendant filed an appeal, the Defendant reported the inheritance tax within 9 months from the date of commencing the inheritance in the case where the decedent or his heir had a domicile in a foreign country, and the statutory due date of return is up to February 23, 2007, the original disposition of this case, despite that the statutory due date of return was up to February 23, 2007, was erroneously applied to the statutory due date of return within 6 months from the date of commencing the inheritance as of November 23, 2006 when the inheritance was determined, was corrected ex officio by reducing KRW 77,321,510, which was excessively imposed on the ground that “the initial disposition of this case was reduced ex officio and the inheritance tax was reduced in total by KRW 6,002,50,02,680, which was the first disposition of this case).
D. On June 17, 2016, if the Tax Tribunal did not specify the limit of the duty of joint and several payment when it issued a notice of collection of the amount of tax determined by the tax authorities, it shall be deemed that it did not have the limit of the duty of joint and several payment. If the property received or to be received by the Plaintiff does not reach the total amount of inheritance tax, the portion exceeding the limit of the duty of joint and several payment in the notice of collection is unlawful. As such, the portion exceeding the limit of the duty of joint and several payment in the notice of collection exceeds the total amount of inheritance tax exceeding KRW 2,162,638,60 (including prior donated property), which is the property value inherited by the Plaintiff, 6,079,824,190 (including prior donated property), and it is reasonable to revoke the notice of collection exceeding KRW 2,162,638,60 on the ground that the first notice of tax collection and the Defendant’s notice of reduction exceeding KRW 6,079,826,26860.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
1) Principal tax relationship
The amount equivalent to the instant money shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property for the following reasons. Therefore, the instant disposition and the instant disposition should be revoked on a different premise.
A) Since the proceeds from the disposal of stocks in this case were fully carried out to Japan at the time of the death of a non-resident, and there was no property of the inheritee in the Republic of Korea, Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act concerning the presumed inherited property cannot be applied. Thus, the proceeds from the disposal of stocks in this case related to the disposal of stocks
B) Since the proceeds from the disposal of the instant shares are donated to ○○○ after being taken out to Japan and delivered to the decedent, it cannot be presumed that the Plaintiff inherited the shares from the decedent pursuant to Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, since the Plaintiff cannot be presumed to have inherited the shares from the decedent, the instant money related to the proceeds from the disposal of the shares in this case shall not be included
2) Additional duties
Even if the disposition of this case and the collection disposition of this case are lawful, the plaintiff and the heir (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") were old since they were moving to Japan, and they were not aware of Korean tax law, and they were imposed inheritance tax only on domestic property as non-resident. Since the plaintiff et al. did not inherit domestic property from the decedent, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff et al. to fulfill the obligation to report inheritance tax in Korea. The plaintiff et al. did not know that the disposal price of this case was subject to the presumption provision of Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the inheritance tax can be imposed by including the taxable amount of inheritance tax in the taxable amount of inheritance tax. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the plaintiff could not report and pay inheritance tax on the money of this case. Accordingly, the disposition of imposition of additional tax in
B. Relevant statutes
Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.
(c) Fact of recognition;
1) Withdrawal of money from the account of the decedent, etc.
A) On September 20, 2004, an inheritee used KRW 3,800,000,000 from the disposal price of the instant shares to purchase negotiable certificates of deposit, etc. 6,45,000,000,000 from the disposal price of the instant shares, and 464,000,000 won was lent to Kim○○, etc., and 1,00,000,000 won was donated to the Plaintiff, and collected KRW 464,00,000 from Kim○, etc. on October 1, 2004. On December 23, 2004, the inheritee deposited the said money into its account after cancelling the 1,80,000,0000,000 won out of the negotiable certificates of deposit, and the remaining 2,800,000,000 won was recovered in cash.
B) From September 20, 2004 to May 16, 2006, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff failed to vindicate the sum of KRW 6,63,008,200 as follows among the details withdrawn from the Defendant’s 0 bank account (hereinafter “instant account”) as follows between September 20, 204 to May 16, 2006.
Date
Account
도요
Amount (originalization)
September 20, 2004
00 bank***************** account*
Withdrawal of money
2,091,000,000
October 8, 2004
00 bank***************** account*
Withdrawal of money
15,000,000
October 27, 2004
Withdrawal of money
100,000,000
October 28, 2004
Withdrawal of money
130,000,000
November 26, 2004
Withdrawal of money
35,000,000
December 23, 2004
Withdrawal of money
136,000,000
December 24, 2004
Withdrawal of money
100,000,000
January 5, 2005
Withdrawal of money
238,000,000
January 6, 2005
Withdrawal of money
92,000,000
January 25, 2005
Withdrawal of money
90,142,200
January 26, 2005
Withdrawal of money
38,000,000
January 27, 2005
Withdrawal of money
43,000,000
February 22, 2005
Withdrawal of money
137,000,000
February 23, 2005
Withdrawal of money
49,057,200
February 24, 2005
Withdrawal of money
18,000,000
March 14, 2005
Withdrawal of money
90,000,000
March 15, 2005
Withdrawal of money
30,000,000
September 20, 2005
Withdrawal of money
750,000,000
October 7, 2005
Withdrawal of money
859,396,200
October 27, 2005
Withdrawal of money
600,000,000
October 28, 2005
Withdrawal of money
8,000,000
November 2, 2005
Withdrawal of money
512,041,700
November 22, 2005
00 bank***************** account*
Withdrawal of money
100,000,000
00 bank***************** account*
Withdrawal of money
211,832,600
December 9, 2005
Withdrawal of money
9,000,000
December 15, 2005
Withdrawal of money
10,731,500
December 16, 2005
Withdrawal of money
20,000,000
December 26, 2005
Withdrawal of money
25,806,800
December 27, 2005
Withdrawal of money
24,000,000
Total
6,663,008,200
2) Report on the bringing-in of leap○○’s Japanese customs office
From September 8, 2004 to March 7, 2006, the deceased's fraudulent leap○○○ (the spouse of the inheritor Kim○○) reported the cash bringing-in to the customs office of Japan as follows (i.e., 221,000,000 UN (=2,073,580,400, hereinafter referred to as "the customs declaration amount of this case").
Date
Details of reports (UNFCCC)
Exchange rate (100N)
Amount (originalization)
September 8, 2004
7,000,000
1,049.29
73,450,300
September 22, 2004
5,000,000
1,039.69
51,984,500
October 8, 2004
5,000,000
1,039.95
51,997,500
October 28, 2004
7,000,000
1,057.25
74,007,500
November 26, 2004
10,000,000
1,020.20
102,020,000
December 24, 2004
11,000,000
1,012.17
111,338,700
January 6, 2005
11,000,000
1,009.55
111,050,500
February 24, 2005
10,000,000
958.75
95,875,000
may 23, 2005
11,000,000
957.02
105,272,200
April 22, 2005
11,000,000
942.55
103,680,500
May 21, 2005
11,000,000
936.43
103,007,300
July 7, 2005
25,000,000
939.56
234,890,000
August 13, 2005
10,000,000
925.00
92,500,000
October 8, 2005
11,000,000
913.83
100,521,300
October 29, 2005
11,000,000
904.22
9,464,200
November 3, 2005
11,000,000
892.84
98,212,400
November 23, 2005
11,000,000
872.99
96,028,900
December 10, 2005
11,000,000
856.29
94,191,900
December 16, 2005
11,000,000
873.62
96,098,200
December 27, 2005
11,000,000
863.85
95,023,500
March 7, 2006
10,000,000
829.66
82,966,00
Total
221,000,000
2,073,580,400
3) Details of deposits by the Japanese bank ○○○
Date
The details of deposits in the Japanese bank account (unit: United Nations) ○○ Japan
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
○ Bank
(302-○○97)
○ Bank
(176-○○15)
○ Bank
(001-○○23)
Total
Total (won)
November 22, 2004
10,000,000
10,000,000
103,228,000
December 3, 2004
5,000,000
5,000,000
50,536,500
December 29, 2004
10,000,000
10,000,000
100,794,000
January 9, 2005
19,990,000
19,990,000
201,431,234
January 12, 2005
8,000,000
8,000,000
80,696,800
February 25, 2005
10,000,000
10,000,000
95,845,000
on March 24, 2005
11,000,000
11,000,000
104,905,900
on March 30, 2005
42,743,986
(Amount of monthly interest)
42,743,986
405,208,713
April 5, 2005
27,888,447
(Amount of monthly interest)
27,888,447
261,908,772
June 17, 2005
30,000,000
30,000,000
278,328,000
July 19, 2005
7,510,000
6,000,000
3,000,000
16,510,000
152,474,803
November 29, 2005
1,845,498
(Amount of monthly interest)
1,845,498
15,976,845
December 1, 2005
10,000,000
2,000,000
12,000,000
103,560,000
December 12, 2005
20,000,000
20,000,000
171,426,00
December 29, 2005
30,000,000
30,000,000
256,461,00
February 16, 2006
1,700,000
1,700,000
14,074,130
March 6, 2006
10,000,000
10,000,000
83,348,000
March 8, 2006
10,000,000
10,000,000
83,362,00
March 10, 2006
10,000,000
10,000,000
82,819,000
April 10, 2006
20,000,000
20,000,000
161,114,00
May 9, 2006
10,000,000
5,970,000
15,970,000
133,226,531
June 8, 2006
2,970,000
2,970,000
24,904,341
June 19, 2006
20,000,000
20,000,000
166,666,00
September 14, 2006
5,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
81,408,000
Total
170,253,986
16,690,000
12,785,498
5,888,447
355,617,931
3,213,703,569
Between 204 and 2006, ○○ deposited 426,617,931N in a bank in Japan (i.e., 3,806, 24,969 won, hereinafter referred to as “the Japanese entry amount”), and the specific details are as follows.
4) Details, etc. of the purchase of art works by leap○○
around 2005, ○○ purchased the following art works in Japan, and around October 2005, he purchased the real estate in Japan at approximately KRW 55,800,000 ( KRW 500,000).
Description of Works
Time of purchase
Purchase Channels
Authors
Purchase price (UNFCCC)
Round
spring in 2005
Tax department department department department department
Mabs (19C)
14,700,000
Mascurgs
spring in 2005
Individuals
Francis francia
140,000,000
Landstruethree
Ga, 2005 Ga 2005 Ga
Individuals
Republic of Korea Republic of Korea Republic of Korea
10,000,000
Total
164,700,000
5) Comparison between the withdrawal amount of the decedent’s account and the Japanese account of leap○○
Comparing the amount of the Japanese deposit and the withdrawn amount of the instant case, the following is made.
Date
The withdrawn amount of this case
(Grification, Won)
The amount of Japanese admission of this case
Jinay
Japan
Bank Name
Deposit Amount
(N.N.)
Amount
(Grification, Won)
September 20, 2004
2,091,000,000
October 8, 2004
15,000,000
October 27, 2004
100,000,000
October 28, 2004
130,000,000
November 22, 2004
○ Bank
10,000,000
103,228,000
November 26, 2004
35,000,000
December 3, 2004
○ Bank
5,000,000
50,536,500
December 23, 2004
136,000,000
December 24, 2004
100,000,000
December 29, 2004
○ Bank
10,000,000
100,794,000
January 5, 2005
238,000,000
January 6, 2005
92,000,000
January 9, 2005
○ Bank
19,990,000
201,431,234
January 12, 2005
○ Bank
8,000,000
80,696,800
January 25, 2005
90,142,200
January 26, 2005
38,000,000
January 27, 2005
43,000,000
February 22, 2005
137,000,000
February 23, 2005
49,057,200
February 24, 2005
18,000,000
February 25, 2005
○ Bank
10,000,000
95,845,000
March 14, 2005
90,000,000
March 15, 2005
30,000,000
on March 24, 2005
○ Bank
11,000,000
104,905,900
on March 30, 2005
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
42,743,986
405,208,713
The amount of money entered before March 31, 2005
April 5, 2005
○ Bank
27,888,447
261,908,772
The amount entered on April 5, 2005
June 17, 2005
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
30,000,000
278,328,000
July 19, 2005
○ Bank
6,000,000
152,474,803
July 19, 2005
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
7,510,000
July 19, 2005
○ Bank
3,000,000
September 20, 2005
750,000,000
October 7, 2005
859,396,200
October 27, 2005
600,000,000
October 28, 2005
8,000,000
November 2, 2005
512,041,700
November 22, 2005
311,832,600
November 29, 2005
○ Bank
(016-○○15)
1,845,498
15,976,845
December 1, 2005
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
10,000,000
103,560,000
December 1, 2005
○ Bank
(016-○○15)
2,000,000
December 9, 2005
9,000,000
December 12, 2005
○ Bank
20,000,000
171,426,00
December 15, 2005
10,731,500
December 16, 2005
20,000,000
December 26, 2005
25,806,800
December 27, 2005
24,000,000
December 29, 2005
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
30,000,000
256,461,00
February 16, 2006
○ Bank
1,700,000
14,074,130
March 6, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
10,000,000
83,348,000
March 8, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
10,000,000
83,362,00
March 10, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
10,000,000
82,819,000
April 10, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○○23)
20,000,000
161,114,00
May 9, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○15)
5,970,000
133,226,531
May 9, 2006
○ Bank
10,000,000
June 8, 2006
○ Bank
(176-○○15)
2,970,000
24,904,341
Commencement Date
After
June 19, 2006
○ Bank
20,000,000
166,666,00
September 14, 2006
○ Bank
5,000,000
81,408,000
September 14, 2006
○ Bank
5,000,000
Consolidateds
6,663,008,200
355,617,931
3,213,703,569
6) A total of KRW 400 million on the Plaintiff of the inheritee
The plaintiff received respectively a donation of KRW 100 million from the decedent, and KRW 300 million on October 27, 2005, from the decedent.
7) Entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea by ○○
Compared with the entry and departure records from September 2004 to May 2006, the amount reported by the customs office of this case, and the withdrawn amount of this case, the following are the same.
No.
Entry and Departure Records
Amount reported to the customs of this case
The withdrawn amount of this case
Date of Entry
Date of departure
Date of Report of Entry into Japan
United Nations
Amount (originalization)
Date of withdrawal
Amount (originalization)
1
September 6, 2004
September 8, 2004
September 8, 2004
7,000,000
73,450,300
2
September 20, 2004
September 22, 2004
September 22, 2004
5,000,000
51,984,500
September 20, 2004
2,091,000,000
3
October 7, 2004
October 8, 2004
October 8, 2004
5,000,000
51,997,500
October 8, 2004
15,000,000
4
October 27, 2004
October 28, 2004
October 28, 2004
7,000,000
74,007,500
October 27, 2004
October 28, 2004
100,000,000
130,000,000
5
November 11, 2004
November 12, 2004
6
November 25, 2004
November 26, 2004
November 26, 2004
10,000,000
102,020,000
November 26, 2004
35,000,000
7
December 23, 2004
December 24, 2004
December 24, 2004
11,000,000
111,338,700
December 23, 2004
December 24, 2004
136,000,000
100,000,000
8
January 5, 2005
January 6, 2005
January 6, 2005
11,000,000
111,050,500
January 5, 2005
January 6, 2005
238,000,000
92,000,000
9
January 25, 2005
January 27, 2005
January 25, 2005
January 26, 2005
January 27, 2005
90,142,200
38,000,000
43,000,000
10
February 22, 2005
February 24, 2005
February 24, 2005
10,000,000
95,875,000
February 22, 2005
February 23, 2005
February 24, 2005
137,000,000
49,057,200
18,000,000
11
March 14, 2005
March 15, 2005
March 14, 2005
March 15, 2005
90,000,000
30,000,000
12
may 22, 2005
may 23, 2005
may 23, 2005
11,000,000
105,272,200
13
April 21, 2005
April 22, 2005
April 22, 2005
11,000,000
103,680,500
14
May 20, 2005
May 21, 2005
May 21, 2005
11,000,000
103,007,300
15
July 7, 2005
July 7, 2005
July 7, 2005
25,000,000
234,890,000
16
August 11, 2005
August 13, 2005
August 13, 2005
10,000,000
92,500,000
17
September 19, 2005
September 21, 2005
September 20, 2005
750,000,000
18
October 7, 2005
October 8, 2005
October 8, 2005
11,000,000
100,521,300
October 7, 2005
859,396,200
19
October 27, 2005
October 29, 2005
October 29, 2005
11,000,000
9,464,200
October 27, 2005
October 28, 2005
600,000,000
8,000,000
20
November 2, 2005
November 3, 2005
November 3, 2005
11,000,000
98,212,400
November 2, 2005
512,041,700
21
November 22, 2005
November 23, 2005
November 23, 2005
11,000,000
96,028,900
November 22, 2005
100,000,000
211,832,600
22
December 9, 2005
December 10, 2005
December 10, 2005
11,000,000
94,191,900
December 9, 2005
9,000,000
23
December 15, 2005
December 16, 2005
December 16, 2005
11,000,000
96,098,200
December 15, 2005
December 16, 2005
10,731,500
20,000,000
24
December 26, 2005
December 27, 2005
December 27, 2005
11,000,000
95,023,500
December 26, 2005
December 27, 2005
25,806,800
24,000,000
25
February 19, 2006
February 20, 2006
26
March 6, 2006
March 7, 2006
March 7, 2006
10,000,000
82,966,00
27
March 27, 2006
March 28, 2006
28
May 16, 2006
May 17, 2006
Total
221,000,000
2,073,580,400
6,663,008,200
8) A written confirmation, etc. by ○○
A) On June 16, 2015, ○○ drafted a written confirmation (hereinafter “instant confirmation”) as follows.
Written Confirmation
I confirm the fact that during several times from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006, 590,000,000 UN was donated by the head of Mao Kim○, a head in Japan.
June 16, 2015
Address: Madio Madio Madio Madro
Name: Ma○○ (Affixing)
B) On July 17, 2015, ○○ prepared a confirmation of the following facts (hereinafter “instant factual confirmation”) in the course of the tax investigation.
Facts Certificate
I would like to simply order the background in which the principal was involved in this issue, first of all, I would like to order the author to simply leave the background of his involvement in this issue. While she was married, she was missing at the 200th boys, she determined her heir as her successor to marriage. she was responsible for all works in the house, including marriage and coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and marriage, funeral and marriage, etc. at the same time as her wife, and 40 years have passed since her mother was her mother was her mother, and her own consciousness is also combining her wife. Then, I would like to explain that she had the principal know that she would be able to recover her domestic investment money from Japan, and I would like to faithfully explain that she would be able to faithfully explain all the problems between her mother and Japan.
In 1965, the author has invested a large amount of contribution for the development of the 1965, and the Japanese Investment Finance established by the South Korea in Japan in 1971. However, I have reported the total loss due to the management insolvency of the subsidiaries. Nevertheless, the establishment of the 00 bank permitted to the South Korea in Japan was at risk, knee and brought about cash, and invested in hand. The development of the 00 bank was not easy. The capital has come due to the 1MF situation, and the case is detained by the president of the 00 bank Escar that is a private money due to the 1MF situation, the 00 bank Escar was bound to withdraw the investment in consideration of the age of its health and age.
At the time of the death of the deceased in Seoul, the deceased dynasium, and so on. The deceased dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium and dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium in Seoul.
If so, I will explain the process of capital movement.
I had a position that it was impossible to perform an illegal act because the Korean professor of the Japanese prestigious National University was the professor of the Japanese National University, and it was an indirect heart in consideration of the reputation of the fraud even after the thickness. When you leave the passbook and the withdrawal certificate to the principal, I would like to see it to the heart, and if the restigator contactss with the financial related persons, and then return the passbook to the principal, it would have been delivered to the deceased in Japan. The process of delivery of the restigiousization in Japan was the direct involvement of the deceased, so I would not know in detail. I know that in the case of the restigious in Japan, it would be far more than the order of the sale if the contact was terminated and it was alive.
More than us have the honor to explain about the taking out of the Republic of Korea of Gohap. After that, the funds have been donated without recourse to the principal who is the largest fraud of Gohap.
July 17, 2015
Man○ (Signature)
C) On May 25, 2017, ○○ testifieded to the effect that, according to the advice of ○○○○○○○, a witness was present as a witness in this court and tried to dispose of the shares of the decedent, he/she exchanged the Korean won currency into the United Nations and directly possessed it, and entered the Republic of Korea into the Republic of Korea, and some of the witnesses were brought into Japan with the remainder after deducting the fee from the unregistered exchange in the name consent, and the exchange transferred the money directly to the decedent.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8 through 15, 20, 22, 24, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, witness leap-○, and Lee ○'s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
D. Determination
1) Whether the presumption of Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to the property leaked abroad before the decedent died
A) Relevant legal principles
The total value of inherited property is the original inherited property (legal inherited property, testamentary gift property, private donated property, etc.) under Article 7 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the presumed inherited property under Articles 8 through 10 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the presumed inherited property under Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act relating to the presumed inherited property. Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act related to the presumed inherited property provides that where the property of the inheritee was disposed of or was borne by the inheritee before the commencement of inheritance date, and the disposal amount and the withdrawn amount, and where the place of use is not proven, it shall be presumed that the inherited property was inherited and included in the taxable value of inherited property. The legislative purport of the above provision is to prevent the improper decrease of inheritance tax due to a donation or inheritance by the ancestor’s heir, such as the disposal
Meanwhile, Article 1(1)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in the case of the death of a nonresident, the inheritance tax shall be levied as prescribed by this Act on all the inherited property of the nonresident located in Korea as of the date the inheritance commences." The former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act has Article 7 on the inherited property and Articles 8 through 10 on the inherited property under the title "property" in Chapter 1 of Chapter II, and Article 13 on the taxable amount of inheritance under the title "the taxable amount of inheritance tax" in Section 3 of the same Chapter, Article 13 on the taxable amount of inheritance tax, Article 14 on the public charges, etc. deducted from the value of the inherited property before the date the inheritance commences, and Article 15 on the presumption of inheritance on the inherited property before the date the inheritance commences. Article 13(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax amount shall be calculated by subtracting from the value of the inherited property under the provisions of Article 14 on the inherited property within 10 years before the date the inheritance commences (subparagraph 1) and subparagraph 2(1).
In addition, the provisions of Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act purported that the amount of disposal of the property disposed of by the decedent within one year retroactively from the date the inheritance commences, and the amount withdrawn from the property, etc. shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under Article 13 of the same Act, not to the purport that the property itself should be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1166,
B) Determination
Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax amount shall be calculated by adding the value of the inherited property donated to an heir or a person other than the heir within a certain period prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, in cases where inheritance commences due to the death of a nonresident, ① Articles 7 through 10 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act separate from the inherited property under Articles 13 through 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Since the estimated inherited property under Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is related to the calculation of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, it seems that the inheritance tax amount differs from the inherited property under Articles 7 through 10 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. ② Article 13 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax amount shall be calculated by adding the value of the inherited property donated to the heir or the heir within a certain period prior to the date of commencing the inheritance. Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax amount shall not be calculated by unfairly exposing the inherited property within a certain period prior to the inheritance tax amount under Article 13 of the former Inheritance Tax Act.
2) Whether the withdrawn amount in this case is presumed to have been inherited property
A) The portion of the customs declaration amount of the instant case
In light of the following circumstances, i.e., 00 won and 200 UN 200: 30,000 won and 40: 60,000 won and 60,000 won and 60,000 won and 60,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 60,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 40,000 won and 7,000 won and 6,000,00 won and 6,000,000 won and 10,000 won and 6,00 won and 7,00,00 won and 6,00 won and 10,00 won and 6,00 won and 6,00 won and 10,000 won and 6,00 won and 6,00 won and 6,00 won and 7,00.
B) The remainder of the withdrawn amount, excluding the amount reported to the customs office of this case
On the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments as seen earlier, i.e., ① the remaining portion of the withdrawn amount, excluding the amount reported by the customs office of this case, was transferred to Japan after the remainder of the withdrawal amount, which was deducted from the commission, was transferred to Japan through the unregistered exchange, and the money brought in through such exchange was thereafter delivered to the inheritee. However, although the Plaintiff asserted that the above withdrawal amount was delivered to the inheritee, it is insufficient to recognize that the remainder of the withdrawal amount excluding the reported amount of the customs office of this case and the witness ○○○, and the witness ○○○, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, was exchanged to United Nations through the Unregistered exchange. Even if some of the withdrawn amount of this case was transferred to United Nations through the Unregistered exchange, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above withdrawal amount should not be objectively specified in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes of this case, based on the lack of objective grounds to recognize that the remaining amount was brought in to Japan, even if some of the testimony of this case is not objectively specified in light of the purpose or circumstances.
3) As to the assertion regarding additional tax
In order to ensure the propriety of taxation, additional tax is a kind of administrative sanction imposed upon a legal entity that is liable for tax payment to impose an obligation to return a tax base in good faith and to pay the amount of tax, and to impose such obligation on the legal entity as a means of securing the obligation. Such a sanction is a kind of administrative sanction in a case where the person liable for tax payment neglects to perform his/her duty as a means of securing the obligation. Since there is a conflict of opinion due to the interpretation of tax-related Acts beyond the scope of simple land or misunderstanding, it may not be unreasonable for the person liable for tax payment to be aware of his/her obligation due to a conflict of opinion due to the interpretation of tax-related Acts, or there is a circumstance in which it is deemed that the performance of his/her obligation cannot be easily anticipated to the person concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du230, Feb. 10
In this case, it seems that there is no significance in the interpretation of the requirements for inclusion in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes due to the presumption under Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the interpretation of the requirements for inclusion in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and that the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, i.e., the plaintiff, etc. were long since they moved to Japan, or that the presumption provision under Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was not applicable, constitutes mere legal sites or misunderstandings, and there is a circumstance that it is difficult to expect the plaintiff to fulfill his tax liability or there is no justifiable reason for the plaintiff to not fulfill his tax liability.
(iv) a reasonable tax amount;
In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority exist objectively. In a case where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful within the scope exceeding the reasonable tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 1989).
As seen earlier, 214,00,000 UN (2,00,130,100) (2,000,100), out of the withdrawn amount of this case, 7,00,000,000 (73,450,300,100) excluding the remainder of the customs declaration amount of this case on September 8, 2004 (7,450,300), should be excluded from the value of estimated inherited property. Accordingly, in reflecting this, when calculating the legitimate tax amount of the disposition of this case, 3,859,763,306 (including additional tax) is calculated as follows. Among them, the legitimate portion of inheritance tax to be borne by the Plaintiff, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, ○, and Kim○○, is the amount corresponding to the “reasonable tax amount on February 2, 200,” and the limit of legitimate tax liability to be borne by the Plaintiff is 1,617,57,172,148,707,70000.
Justifiable tax amounts shall be fair.
(unit: Won)
Disposition of this case
Justifiable Tax Amount
Taxable Amount of inheritance tax
6,863,008,200
4,862,878,100
Limit of Amount to be deducted
200,000,000
200,000,000
Tax Base
6,663,008,200
4,662,878,100
calculated tax amount
Tax Rate
50
50
calculated tax amount
2,871,504,100
1,871,439,050
calculated tax amount system;
2,871,504,100
1,871,439,050
Amount of tax credit
Amount of gift tax credit;
70,000,000
70,000,000
Amount of final tax
2,801,504,100
1,801,439,050
Additional Tax on negligent tax returns
560,300,820
360,287,809
Additional Dues
2,640,697,764
1,698,036,447
Total determined tax amount
6,002,502,684
3,859,763,306
The amount of inheritance tax payable by inheritor.
(unit: Won)
Classification
Relationship with the inheritee
Succession (Status)
An heir (i)
An heir (i)
An heir (i)
An heir (i)
Legal Inheritance Shares in Inheritance
3/11
2/11
2/11
2/11
2/11
Total
Plaintiff
○ Kim
○ Kim
○ Kim
○ Kim
Value of the inherited property
(+)The estimated value of the inherited property;
4,462,878,100
1,217,148,572
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
(1) The total value of inherited property.
4,462,878,100
1,217,148,572
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
(2) Net value of inherited property.
4,462,878,100
1,217,148,572
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
(+ Value of donated property
400,000,000
400,000,000
Taxable Value of Inheritance
4,862,878,100
1,617,148,572
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
811,432,382
(-) Inheritance deduction amount (the applicable limit of deduction).
200,000,000
(3) Inheritance tax bases.
4,662,878,100
Calculation of Tax Base by Inheritor
(4) Pre-donation gift tax base other than inheritors
(5) The tax base of inheritance tax subject to distribution (III-No.4)
4,662,878,100
Direct Distribution
The value of donated property in advance by inheritor.
400,000,000
400,000,000
Amount of donated property deduction for each inheritor;
(6) Tax base of donation in advance by inheritor.
400,000,000
400,000,000
(7) Calculation (Proportional distribution to the net value of inherited property by inheritor).
4,262,878,100
1,162,603,118
75,068,745
75,068,745
75,068,745
75,068,745
(8) The aggregate of the tax bases by inheritor (Korean).
4,662,878,100
1,562,603,118
75,068,745
75,068,745
75,068,745
75,068,745
(9) Inheritance tax liability ratio by inheritor.
100.00%
3.51%
16.62%
16.62%
16.62%
16.62%
Inheritance Tax Amount
1,871,439,050
The calculated tax amount by inheritor;
(10) The calculated tax amount fraternity;
1,871,439,050
(11) The calculated tax amount of donee other than inheritor
(12) Calculated tax amount by successor;
1,871,439,050
627,148,390
311,072,665
311,072,665
311,072,665
311,072,665
Gift Tax Credit
Amount of gift tax;
70,000,000
70,000,000
Limit of Deduction
70,000,000
70,000,000
Gift Tax Credit
70,000,000
70,000,000
Amount of final tax
1,801,439,050
57,148,390
311,072,665
311,072,665
311,072,665
311,072,665
Additional Tax on negligent tax returns
360,287,809
19,813,597
60,118,553
60,118,553
60,118,553
60,118,553
Additional Dues
1,698,036,447
564,681,483
283,338,741
283,338,741
283,338,741
283,338,741
Total determined tax amount
3,859,763,306
1,241,643,470
654,529,959
654,529,959
654,529,959
654,529,959
Tax amount already paid
(13) Tax amount payable by inheritor.
3,859,763,306
1,241,643,470
654,529,959
654,529,959
654,529,959
654,529,959
Therefore, the portion exceeding the amount indicated in the “justifiable Tax Amount” column should be revoked as unlawful, and the portion exceeding KRW 1,617,148,572 of the collection disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful. The portion exceeding KRW 1,617,148,572 of the collection disposition of this case should be revoked.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, each of the claims of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.