early 209 Heavy2149 ( October 14, 2010)

Notice of tax payment to co-inheritors and joint and several tax liability, etc.

It is reasonable to view that the total amount of taxes that co-inheritors are jointly and severally liable to pay is indicated as the collection notice amount, and that the amount of taxes to be paid by each co-inheritors has been individually imposed and collected according to the tax notice statement by joint and several taxpayers attached

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff Lee-A, whose claim was dismissed, shall be revoked, and the lawsuit by the plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff NewB, thisCC, ED, EE, EF, EF, and EG are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the litigation between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff NewB, thisCC, ED, EE, EE, EF, EF, and EG for appeal by the Plaintiff NewB, ECC, ED, EE, EF, EF, EF, and EG.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 571,05,660 won for the portion belonging to the year 2004 against the plaintiffs on August 12, 2008 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs is revoked, and the defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 455,779,567 against the plaintiffs on August 12, 2008 is revoked.

1. Whether the action by the Plaintiff A is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the action of the plaintiff Lee Dong-A.

A. According to the records, while filing the instant lawsuit on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed to the letter of delegation of the lawsuit submitted to the Suwon District Court. The Plaintiff submitted the petition of appeal in the name of the Plaintiff to the Suwon District Court on July 30, 2010. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff’s first instance judgment and appeal with respect to himself/herself are not effective since he/she did not delegate his/her attorney’s power of attorney’s power of attorney.

B. Article 89(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the authority of an attorney shall be attested in writing, and Article 89(2) provides that where the document under paragraph (1) is a private document, the court may order the attorney to obtain authentication from a notary public or any other person engaged in a notarial business, and that the attorney-at-law shall submit a document evidencing the delegation of the authority of attorney by the plaintiff at the first date for pleading of the party trial, the attorney-at-law responded to the order of the presiding judge who shall obtain authentication from the plaintiff at the first date for pleading of the party trial, that "the plaintiff cannot submit a certificate

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful in its entirety, since the Plaintiff’s attorney-H was not proven to have been delegated the power of attorney by thisA.

2. Determination on the claims filed by the Plaintiff NewB, thisCC, ED, EE, EF, EF, and EG

This Court's explanation is as follows, except where the following is added to the end of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the plaintiff's explanation with respect to this case), and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3) Whether the principle of self-responsibility is violated

In consultation and division of the deceased J's inherited property, the above plaintiffs merely agreed upon and divided substitute farmland into the sole ownership of this KK, and did not know how it would manage and dispose of substitute farmland. If it was known that it did not dispose of substitute farmland, it could not be said that it did not dispose of substitute farmland. Therefore, the above plaintiffs should be held liable only to this KK who did not meet the requirement of self-reliance in making a tax disposition because it did not meet the three-year self-reliance requirement for substitute farmland. However, the reason that it is co-inheritors of the deceased's co-inheritors is in violation of the principle of self-responsibility as stipulated in the Constitution.

As seen earlier, as long as the duty to pay capital gains tax established at the time of the deceased’s survival is inherited to the Plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased, the Plaintiffs shall be jointly and severally liable for capital gains tax as prescribed by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, insofar as the obligation to pay capital gains tax established at the time of the deceased’s survival does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax. On the ground that the heir has a dual-class relationship with the circumstances where the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the previous land have not been met, the Plaintiffs cannot be held liable for the payment of capital gains tax of this case. As such, the bearing of the Plaintiffs’ joint and several liability cannot be deemed to contravene the principle of self-responsibility

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed, and all of the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff is dismissed differently from this conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit is revoked, and the remaining plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed, and all of them are dismissed as it is without merit. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff's plaintiff's and the defendant is borne by the attorney regularH, and the rest of the plaintiffs' appeal costs are borne by the remaining plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.