(1) If the effect of a will is at issue, it constitutes a legitimate cause for not paying inheritance tax.

In the light of the scale of inheritance tax and the progress of litigation on inherited property, etc., the reason why a will cannot be paid the inheritance tax is a justifiable reason, and thus, disposition imposing an additional tax on additional payment is unreasonable.

Article 78 of the Inheritance Tax Act

1. The part exceeding KRW 2,597,385,931, among the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,842,176,053, which the Defendant rendered against Plaintiff △△△△△△△△, is revoked in excess of KRW 576,745,30, respectively, of the disposition of imposition of KRW 527,071,551, among the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,745,30, which the Defendant imposed on Plaintiff △△△△△△△△

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are the successors of the chip chip that died on November 5, 2003, and the inheritors of the deceased including the Plaintiffs filed an inheritance tax return with the taxing KRW 10,208,236,418, which deducts the taxable value of the inheritance tax of 3,177,819,686.

B. Meanwhile, on November 6, 2004, the inheritors, including the plaintiffs, agreed to divide the inherited property of the deceased into the ratio of 29/312, respectively.

C. The defendant, on the ground that the heir did not pay the inheritance tax reported on January 1, 2005, determined the total amount of 19 won including 314,200,631 won, and 4,178,907,050 won, including 314,20,631 won, and the total amount of 4,178,907,050 won. After the on-site investigation, the defendant increased the taxable amount of inheritance tax on June 15, 2005 to 5,67,436,028 won, additional tax amount of 246,310,08 won, additional tax of 246,310,08 won, and additional tax of 523,249,813 won, including 4,178,907,059 won and additional tax of 314,202,65,350 won, and 36,374,25,27,274,27, etc.

In fact that there is no dispute with the basis for recognition, each entry in Gap's 2, 4, and 5, Eul's evidence 1 (including more than one number)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs are unlawful to impose penalty tax on the Defendant even if there were justifiable grounds for not being able to report and pay the inheritance tax until the Supreme Court's final judgment was rendered on September 8, 2006 due to legal disputes as to the reversion of inherited property.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 11, 2003, 2003, ○○○○○○○ Branch of ○○○ Bank, the deceased’s heir discovered a testamentary book in the name of the deceased (hereinafter “the testament of this case”) that donated all the property of the deceased’s name to ○ University. On November 14, 2003, the deceased filed an application for the approval seal of the testament with the Seoul Family Court for the approval seal of the above testament, and the stamp of approval was prepared in accordance with the inspection procedure conducted on December 2, 2003.

(2) After that, ○○○ Bank deposited KRW 2,385,458,099 with the Seoul ○○ District Court Decision 2003Hun-Ga4110, Dec. 29, 2003, on the ground that it was impossible to identify the creditor without negligence with respect to the deposit in the name of the deceased. The ○○ Bank deposited KRW 2,385,458,09 with the repayment of KRW 141,141, Jan. 12, 2004, and the ○○ Bank deposited KRW 5,572,836,364 with each repayment of KRW 141,572,836,364 with the Seoul ○○ District Court Decision 2004, Jan. 12, 2004. As it was impossible to do so, there

(3) Accordingly, the successors, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking payment of deposit and claiming return of deposit based on shares in inheritance with the Seoul ○○ District Court 2003Gahap86119 on the ground that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was a will based on the certificate of completion of the instant will against the ○○○○○ Bank, which was not affixed with the seal of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seal, and that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not a private donation to the ○○○ University. Accordingly, the ○○○○○ University participated in the lawsuit seeking payment of deposit

Therefore, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on May 17, 2005 on the ground that the will of this case was omitted with the seal of the deceased, and thus, it is not effective as a will by a self-certificate, and it cannot be said that a private donation contract was concluded between the deceased and the ○ University of Educational Foundation.

(4) Although ○ University appealed from ○ University on March 7, 2006, the judgment dismissing an appeal was rendered on March 7, 2006 by Seoul ○○ Court 2005Na63162 (Mains), 2005Na63179 (Intervention as Independent Party). The final appeal was filed with the Supreme Court on September 8, 2006, but the final appeal was rendered by Supreme Court Decision 2006Da25103, 2006Da25110.

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the whole purport of the pleading

C. Determination

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a 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 Act, and it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her obligations, and there is a justifiable reason not to impose such obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005).

In accordance with the above facts, the deceased made a will by means of the above self-certificate and died on November 5, 2003, one of the inheritors found the certificate of completion at the bank’s treasury of the deceased. The majority of the deceased’s inherited property is financial property including the deposited deposit and the bonds whose maturity is not yet due, and there is dispute over ownership between the inheritor and the ○ University, and the relevant financial institution deposited the deposit under the name of the deceased with the obligee’s name in a financial institution. After which the inheritor is uncertain, the inheritance tax is reported once the inheritance is declared under the uncertainty of who is the inherited property, and the ○○ Bank, Inc., a corporation in which the ○ University participated as an independent party, was the defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to claim payment of the total deposit and the right to claim the return of the claim whose maturity is not yet due, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 8, 2006.

As above, the inheritance tax return of this case was filed with the aim of avoiding disadvantages due to the application of additional tax due to the failure to file a return and payment in the state of multiple items regarding the validity of the testament of this case. Not only at the time of filing the inheritance tax of this case but also at the time of the final and conclusive judgment of the above Supreme Court, the effect of will on the whole of the inherited property including the total amount of 12,338,294,630 won in the name of the deceased was not confirmed. The value of the inherited property of this case is equivalent to KRW 13,845,046,013, and even if the total amount of the inheritance tax is not considered as additional tax, it is 5.6 billion won even if the plaintiffs reported the inheritance tax, it is merely done with the intention of avoiding disadvantages due to additional tax in the state of dispute as to the ownership of the inherited property. In light of the size of the inheritance tax of this case and the progress of litigation as to the inherited property, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to report and pay the inheritance tax of this case without justifiable reason.

Therefore, the reasonable amount of tax on the inherited property, except for additional tax, is KRW 5,67,436,028, and the amount of tax on the inherited property is calculated according to the inheritance shares, Plaintiff 2,597,385,931, Plaintiff 2, 385,931, Plaintiff 00, ○○○○, and △△△△△,” respectively, is KRW 527,071,551

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.