Whether there is any justifiable ground for not being negligent in neglecting the obligation related to additional tax

Since the ownership of inherited property is not confirmed, there is a justifiable reason that cannot be caused by the under-reported or unpaid payment of inheritance tax.

Article 16 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Each party shall bear the expenses for an appeal and incidental appeal; and

1. Purport of claim

The part exceeding KRW 357,761,920 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 477,043,262 of inheritance tax on August 1, 2005 by the Defendant against the designated person Kim Jong-chul, the part exceeding KRW 507,816,487 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,427,275 of inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the designated person Kim Jong-soo, and the part exceeding KRW 482,46,487 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,427,275 of inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the designated person Kim Jong-young, and the part exceeding KRW 482,46,487 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,427,275 of inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the master Kim-young (the date of the disposition stated in the purport of the claim and in the supporting statement of causes on May 8, 2007, " June 15, 2005").

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the remaining part that has not been revoked in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be explained in this decision are as follows: (a) not more than six (1) and not more than 12 (2) of the sixth (5) and the seventh (7) of the judgment of the court of first instance are added to each of the following judgments; and (b) not more than the second (2) of the 111 as "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)" are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional matters to be determined

(1) As to the additional tax portion, even if the validity of the will of this case is recognized, the plaintiff and the designated parties, who are legal inheritance of the deceased, should be deemed to have been obligated to pay inheritance tax on the inherited property corresponding to 1/3 of statutory inheritance stipulated in Article 1112 of the Civil Act. Thus, at least, this part of the inheritance tax liability is deemed to have been established definitely, so there is no justifiable reason not to be attributable to the failure to pay inheritance tax. However, in light of the following: (a) the heir and the ○ University of Educational Foundation continue to dispute over the ownership of all inherited property, including legal reserve; and (b) the total amount of inheritance tax exceeds 1.8 billion won even based on legal reserve of inheritance, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff and the designated parties to pay in advance only the portion corresponding to legal reserve of inheritance tax, and thus contrary to this, the defendant's assertion against this is not acceptable.

(2) The church donation portion

Article 16 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 13(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “where there are at least two inheritors, the value of the property that appears to exist shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property to a public-service corporation, etc.” However, in this case, if one of the heirs contributes the property to a public-service corporation according to his/her own intent, as in this case, it shall not be subject to the above provision. Thus, even if the heir contributed part of the inherited property without agreement with other heirs, the value of the property should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the inheritance tax should not be included in the taxable value of inherited property under Article 16(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 190) and Article 13(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should not be included in the taxable value of inherited property to be donated to the public-service corporation under Article 28(1).36(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be raised without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap4568 ( December 05, 2007)]

1. The part that exceeds KRW 430,046,925, among the disposition of imposition of KRW 477,043,262, imposed by the Defendant against the ○○○○○○○ on August 1, 2005, the part that exceeds KRW 519,640,034,034, respectively, among the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,427,275, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the △△△△△△△△△, which was imposed by

2. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 50% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 477,043,262 on August 1, 2005 exceeds KRW 357,761,920 among the imposition disposition of KRW 477,043,262, the amount exceeding KRW 357,761,920, the amount exceeding KRW 507,816,487, respectively, among the imposition disposition of KRW 576,427,275, the amount exceeding KRW 576,42,46,487, among the imposition disposition of KRW 576,427,275, the amount exceeding KRW 576,46,487, among the imposition disposition of KRW 576,427,275, which was issued by the Defendant to ○○○,00, May 8, 2007, “the date of the disposition” as stated in the claims and in the supporting statement, appears to be a clerical error of August 15, 2005”).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 망 ◎◎◎는 2003.11.5 사망하였는데, 망인은 달리 직계존비속이 없어 그의 동생인 소외 ▩▩▩와 그의 형수인 선정자 ○○○, 조카인 원고 ◇◇◇, 선정자 □□□, △△△, 소외 ★★★, ▲▲▲이 공동으로 망인의 재산을 상속하게 되었다.

나. 원고 및 선정자들을 포함한 망인의 상속인들은 2004.4.21 공익사업출연금 3,177,819,686원을 공제한 10,208,236,418원을 상속세 과세가액으로 하여 상속세 신고를 하였으며, 한편 2004.11.6 망인의 상속재산을 소외 ▩▩▩ 143/312, 선정자 ○○○ 24/312, 원고 ◇◇◇, 선정자 □□□, △△△, 소외 ★★★, ▲▲▲이 각 29/312의 비율로 분할하기로 협의하였다.

C. However, the defendant decided and notified the total amount of inheritance tax as KRW 4,178,907,050 (including KRW 19,200, KRW 314,200,631) on the ground that the heir did not pay inheritance tax reported by the heir on January 1, 2005, on the ground that the heir did not contribute inheritance tax to public interest projects through the on-site investigation, and on the ground that the heir did not partially omit inherited property, such as interest on bonds, etc., the taxable value of inheritance tax of August 1, 2005 was increased to KRW 13,845,046,013, KRW 4,178,907,059, KRW 2,022,65,351, and KRW 6,201, KRW 562,562,410 (including KRW 75,276,476,747,75,747,294,75,27,27, etc.).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 18-20, Eul evidence 1-1 through Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The inheritors, including the Plaintiff and the designated parties, could not report or pay inheritance tax properly until the final judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on September 8, 2006 due to legal disputes as to the reversion of the entire inherited property of the deceased. Thus, the Defendant’s imposition of a report or an erroneous payment for negligence on the part of the inheritor was unlawful despite the fact that there was a justifiable reason for not being able to cause such negligence.

(2) Of inherited property, in the case of roads 277-7, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, which are currently being used by many unspecified residents, there is no future plan for expropriation or compensation. Therefore, the part that adds the amount equivalent to the officially announced value to the taxable value of inherited property should be revoked unfairly

(3) 선정자 ○○○은 2006.11.15 공익법인인 ●●교회에 125,000,000원을, 선정자 □□□는 2006.10.1 역시 공익법인인 ∇∇∇∇∇ 교회에 50,700,000원을 기부하였는바, 위와 같은 공익법인에 출연된 금액을 상속세 과세가액에 가산한 것은 부당하므로 이 부분 역시 취소되어야 한다.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 원고 ◇◇◇은 망인의 사망 직후인 2003.11.11 주식회사 우리은행 목동지점의 대여금고에서 망인 명의의 모든 재산을 ■■대학교에 기부한다는 내용의 자필 유언장(이하 이 사건 유언장이라 한다)을 발견하였고, 이에 상속인들이 2003.11.14 서울가정법원에 위 유언장의 검인신청을 하여 2003.12.2 진행된 검인절차에 따라 검인조서가 작성되었다.

(2) 학교법인 ■■대학교는 위 유언장에 따라 망인 명의로 된 예금 등이 있는 주식회사 우리은행, 주식회사 한국외환은행 등에게 예금의 출금을 요구하였는데, 은행 측에서는 위 유언장에 망인의 날인이 되어 있지 아니하다는 이유로 예금의 지급을 거절하고, 과실 없이 채권자를 알 수 없다는 이유로 주식회사 한국외환은행이 2003.12.29 서울서부지방법원 2003금제4110호로 2,385,458,099원을, 주식회사 우리은행이 2004.1.12 서울서부지방법원 2004금제141호로 5,572,836,364원을 각 변제공탁하였다. 한편 위 은행들에는 그 외에도 망인의 명의로 중도해약이 불가능하고, 아직 만기일에 이르지 아니한 합계액 4,380,000,000원 상당의 채권이 남아 있었다.

(3) 한편 위 사실을 알게 된 원고 및 선정자들을 포함한 상속인들은 주식회사 우리은행을 상대로 이 사건 유언장은 자필증서에 의한 유언인데 망인의 날인이 되어 있지 아니하므로 유언으로서의 효력이 없을 뿐만 아니라, 망인의 생전에 그 소유재산 전부를 학교법인 ■■대학교에 사인 증여한 것으로 볼 수도 없다는 이유로 서울중앙지방법원 2003 가합 86119호로 상속지분에 다른 공탁금출급청구권 및 예금반원청구권 확인소송을 제기하였고, 이에 학교법인 ■■대학교가 위 법원 2003가합89828(참가)호로 독립당사자참가를 하였다. 한편 피고는 위 소송 중인 2005.3.2 이 사건 상속세의 징수를 위하여 위 우리은행의 공탁금을 압류하였다.

(4) 위 법원은 2005.5.17 이 사건 유언장은 망인의 날인이 누락되어 있어 자필증서에 의한 유언으로서의 효력이 없으며, 망인과 학교법인 ■■대학교와 사이에 사인증여계약이 성립되었다고 할 수도 없다면서 상속인들에 대한 승소 판결을 선고하였고, 이에 학교법인 ■■대학교가 항소하였으나, 2006.3.7 서울고등법원 2005나63162(본소), 2005나 63179호(독립당사자참가)로 항소기각 판결이 선고되고, 다시 대법원에 상고 하였으나 2006.9.8 대법원 2006다25103(본소), 2006다25110(참가)호로 상고기각 판결이 선고되었다.

(5) 위와 같이 판결이 확정된 후 선정자 ○○○은 2006.10.15 평소 다니던 대한예수교 장로회 성남노회 소속 ●●교회에 헌금으로 125,000,000원을 기부하였고, 선정자 □□□ 역시 2006.10.1 평소 다니던 위 같은 노회 소속 ∇∇∇∇∇교회에 헌금 등으로 50,700,000원을 기부하였다.

(6) 한편 망인의 상속재산 중 서울 강서구 ○○동 277-7 도로 428.1㎡(이하 '이 사건 도로'라 한다)는 현황 도로로서 불특정 다수가 사용하고 있고 현재 해당 구청에서는 토지수용이나 보상계획이 전혀 없는 상태인데, 피고는 망인의 상속재산 가액을 산정함에 있어 이 사건 도로의 시가를 153,652,000원(428㎡X공시지가 359,000원)으로 산정하여 이에 포함시켰다.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1.2, Gap evidence 5 through Eul evidence 23, Eul evidence 1-1 through Eul evidence 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Additional tax portion

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the law, and where there is an unreasonable reason to believe that it is difficult to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005).

그런데 위 인정사실에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 망인이 앞서 본 바와 같이 학교법인 ■■대학교에 상속재산 전부를 기부한다는 내용의 자필증서에 의해 유언을 하고 2003.11.5 사망하였으며, 상속인들이 망인의 은행금고에서 이 사건 유언장을 발견하여 유언장 검인신청까지 하였던 점, 망인 상속재산의 대부분은 공탁된 예금과 만기가 도래하지 않은 채권을 포함한 금융재산인데, 이에 관하여 상속인들과 학교법인 ■■대학교 사이에 그 소유권에 관하여 다툼이 있어 해당금융기관에서는 이를 공탁하였던 점, 상속인들은 상속재산의 소유권이 누구에게 있는지 불확실한 상태에서 일단 신고납부불성실 가산세의 적용으로 인한 불이익을 피할 목적으로 부득이하게 상속세 신고를 하였으나, 이 사건 상속세 신고 당시뿐만 아니라 위 대법원 확정판결시까지도 망인 명의 금융재산 합계 12,338,294,630원 등을 포함한 상속재산 전부에 관하여 유언장에 의한 유언의 효력이 미확정인 상태에 있었던 점, 이 사건 상속재산가액은 13,845,046,013원 상당으로, 그로 인한 전체 상속세액 역시 가산세 등을 고려하지 않는다 하여도 총 56억여원에 이르는 거액인 점, 또한 피고는 위 사건 1심 판결 전에 위 우리은행의 공탁금에 대하여 이미 압류를 한 상태였던 점 등 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 비록 원고를 비롯한 상속인들이 상속세를 신고하였다 하여도 이는 상속재산의 귀속에 관하여 다툼이 있는 상태에서 가산세로 인한 불이익을 면할 목적으로 어쩔 수 없이 이루어진 것에 불과하여, 이 사건 상속세의 규모와 상속재산에 관한 소송의 경과등에 비추어 보았을 때 위와 같이유언의 효력이 문제되고 있는 상황에서 상속세를 미리 신고·납부할 것을 기대하는 것은 무리라고 하지 않을 수 없으므로, 결국 원고 및 선정자들에게는 이 사건 상속세 과소신고·미납부를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있다고 할 것이고, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 있다.

(2) The church donation portion

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the total amount of KRW 175,70,000 contributed to a church should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, which is the property contributed by the public interest corporation as stipulated in Article 16 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, according to the above provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, if there are two or more inheritors in order to constitute the property contributed to the public interest corporation as above, the requirements such as: (a) the heir must perform the contribution within the due date of filing the tax base return (6 months from the date of commencing the inheritance) under Article 67 of the above Act; and (b) as seen above, ○○○, and Mai Mai Mai was merely donated to a church which was inherited at their own will within three years after the date of commencing the inheritance; and (c) it cannot be deemed that this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to satisfy the requirements of the property contributed to the public interest corporation, which is not included in the taxable value of inherited property.

(3) The part of the road in this case

Although the Defendant calculated the market price of the instant road at KRW 153,652,00 and included the value of the inherited property in the taxable value of the inheritance, Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the inheritance tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the commencement date of the inheritance. Although it is not limited to the guidelines for the performance of duties inside the national tax administration, the actual road of which is commonly used by many and unspecified persons is included in the inherited property, but if it is deemed that there is no property value, such as there is no compensation price, as it cannot be used for any purpose other than the road as of the base date of the inheritance tax, the appraised value shall be zero. The purport of the public record is that if inherited property is offered to many and unspecified persons as a de facto road at the time of the commencement of the inheritance regardless of its land category, it cannot be deemed that there is substantial property value except in exceptional cases where the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance is confirmed by compensation price, etc., and thus, it can be recognized as a common rule at the time of the inheritance.

Therefore, since the road of this case is actually used by many unspecified persons, and its market value is recognized as property value, such as confirmation of the market value on the date of commencing an inheritance based on the compensation price, etc., it is reasonable to view it as "0." Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the value of the inherited property, other than the value of the road of this case, is 13,691,394,013 won (i.e., the value of the inherited property originally determined, 13,845,046,013 won - the value of the road of this case 153,652,000 won). The reasonable determined tax amount calculated accordingly is 6,035,697,006 (i.e., the value of the inherited property determined by the above 13,691,394,000 - 7,000,000,000 - 3,000,000,000,0000 - 20,000,0000,0000 - 25,0000,0000,0000 won) - 26,0616,57,0610,000 won and 457,05,06,081.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting part of the claim.