Cho Jae-2012-west-3541 ( November 20, 2012)

The value of the inherited property shall be appraised as business example within six months before or after the evaluation base date.

Since the sale of apartment in the sales case was conducted within six months from the date of inheritance of the apartment at issue and the sales price is normal transaction price reflecting objective exchange values due to the sale of apartment with the same or similar apartment with the area, location, purpose, and item of the apartment at issue, the disposition of this case evaluated as the value of inherited property by considering the market price of the apartment at issue

2013Guhap4934 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

CHAPTER A

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

June 20, 2013

August 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the inheritance tax OOO(including additional OOOO) against the plaintiff on May 1, 2012 (the head of the office on May 4, 2012 is a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff, as the wife of ParkB, ParkB died on December 7, 2009, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by agreement on December 7, 2009 with regard to "OB 654 O209 O202 402 402 hereinafter referred to as "OB 209 O200 O200 O2000 O200000000000000.000000.0000.0000.000.000.000.000.000.00.000.00.000.00.000.000. 200.00.00.00.00.000. 2000. 200.00. 2000. 2010. 20000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 49(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22042, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act") provides that the subject apartment is identical to the subject apartment; ② the standard market price under Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act was added as of February 2, 2012; ③ the national bank price table is not the subject apartment as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree; ③ the apartment is the 9th floor; ③ the apartment is the 9th floor; the comparative apartment is a low-rise apartment; ④ the apartment was sold to the OOO in the voluntary auction procedure on December 9, 2009; ④ the apartment was sold to the OOO's market price at the 2010 won, not the related case at the OOO's market price.

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which inheritance tax is levied shall be the market value as of the base date of appraisal, and the market value shall be the value generally recognized as a transaction at will between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the value recognized as the market value by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as expropriation, etc. Accordingly, Article 49 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the transaction value shall be deemed as the market value in cases where there is a transaction fact of the same or similar property, such as the area, location, use

2) The following facts may be acknowledged if each entry of evidence B(2) to 7 added the purport of the whole pleadings:

① The specification of the apartment complex in question and the apartment complex subject to comparison and sales cases is as follows: 209 Dong and 212 Dong Dong, which are the nine-story apartment complex in question, are all the nine-story apartment complex in 1, 2 and falling under the 1, 2Ra, and the apartment complex falling under the 3, 3, and 6Ra is the south-west apartment. The apartment case is the highest floor and is the outside of the 212 unit, and the apartment in dispute (209 Dong 402) is the 212 unit.

Compared Apartments (212, 204)

apartment buildings (212, 901, 212)

Exclusive area (Land size)

131.83

131.83

131.83

Location

Southwester

South East-west

Southwester

Use

Residential

Residential

Residential

Category

Location in the same complex

Location in the same complex

Location in the same complex

Observation

OOcheon Viewing

OOcheon Viewing

OOcheon View

Standard Market Price

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Proceeds of sale

OOOE

OOOE

② On April 14, 2009, an apartment subject to comparison was ordered to commence a voluntary auction, and the appraised value on the auction procedure was an OOO. However, on November 4, 2009, the sales was sold to OOO on December 9, 2009, but the sales was revoked, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed at the OOO on December 11, 2009.

(3) The trading price of the same flat-type apartment within the same complex, such as the key apartment in the integrated computer network for national taxes, shall be as follows:

(unit: million won)

Number of clubs

Date of contract

Transaction Amount

Standard Market Price

The reasonable price of the appraiser

212No. 904

July 20, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

212No. 901 (Sales Cases)

August 27, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

201No. 704

October 9, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

201No. 204, 204

December 10, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

209, 402 No. 402

December 27, 2009

OOO

(4) The national bank price for apartments in the same complex, including controversial apartments, shall be as follows:

(unit: million won)

Date

Subaverage Price

General Average Price

Average Price

July 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

August 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

September 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

on October 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

November 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

December 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

3) In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized in the above facts, the sale of apartment in the sales case was conducted within six months from the date of inheritance of the apartment at issue, and the sale of apartment with the same or similar apartment with the same or similar area, and the sale price is also considered a normal transaction amount reflecting the objective exchange value. Thus, the Defendant’s disposal of apartment in the sales case by deeming the sale price of apartment at the market price of the apartment at issue as the sale price of the apartment at issue is lawful pursuant to Article 60(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.

① The comparable apartment was the initial appraised value in the voluntary auction procedure, which was conducted by the OOO in a single bid, and was sold to the OOO won immediately thereafter. Thus, it is difficult to view the OOO won as the normal price, which was the normal price, but was treated rapidly at a price lower than the market price. The comparable apartment is considerably lower than the lower average price of the national bank’s market price, and is going beyond the market price.

② Although the apartment of this case is 9 stories, the apartment of this case is viewed as 9 stories, and the apartment of this case is viewed as 201, the apartment of this case is located on the last day of the 212 southwest, the apartment of this case, 1. The apartment of this case is located on the southwest, 212, the apartment of this case, and even if there is a little difference in the residential environment of apartment of this case and the apartment of this case, such difference is not likely to affect the formation of the transaction price of apartment. 3. In light of the standard market price, the apartment of this case is lower than the key apartment, and the apartment of this case is the issue. In addition, in the application of the provision of Article 49(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the apartment of this case is not subject to the formation of the market price of the apartment of this case from the 20th anniversary of the change in the area, location, purpose of use and standard market price of the apartment of this case until the 20th day.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.