The fact that the decedent deposits a child's name in the name of the borrower is not a prior donation property.

Even if the deposit claim of the inheritee, which was borrowed and managed in the name of the inheritor, is illegal to dispose of the property which did not receive the inheritance deduction of the financial property, because it is deemed as a prior donation property unless the inheritor does not have a basis to regard it as a person in charge

Article 22 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / [Inheritance Deductions]

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 28,755,480 on August 12, 2005 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed ○○○ shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 5, 2002, 2002, ○○○○○ (hereinafter “the decedent”) (hereinafter “the decedent”) (hereinafter “the decedent”) submitted to the Defendant a report on the tax base of inheritance and an unfair trade practice on March 5, 2003 regarding KRW 1,540,419,69, the value of inherited property; KRW 1,522,895,108, the taxable value of inherited property; KRW 423,854,120, calculated on KRW 423,854,120, the inheritance tax base of KRW 67,293,742.

B. On November 15, 2002, the inheritors of the inheritee inherited most of the inherited property, including the real estate and deposit claims, among the inherited property, by consultation on the division of inherited property on November 15, 2002 by the designated parties, and the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) who is the head of the inheritee inherited 50,000,000 won of deposit claims among the inherited property, and the remaining inheritors agreed to waive inheritance.

C. The Defendant collected 202,937,149 won in advance, and 450,000,000 won in advance, which should be viewed as donated property, not inherited property, by conducting a tax investigation on the above inheritance tax return, and based on this, did not recognize 79,040,988 won in advance, and 7,47,082 won in the above report of inheritance tax, and instead did not recognize 78,031,758 won in inheritance tax and 42,270,000 won in each tax investigation on December 23, 2004.

D. On January 14, 2005, the plaintiff and the designated person were dissatisfied with the notice of the results of the tax investigation and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the defendant on January 14, 2005. On May 6, 2005, the defendant received a request from the plaintiff and the designated person with respect to the portion of the pre-donation property 202.937.149, which was omitted from the inherited property, but on the other hand, the plaintiff and the designated person made a re-assessment decision to the effect that the decision on whether to impose inheritance tax should be made through the analysis of additional financial data on the deposits in the name of the plaintiff, the designated person and other successors, as well as the portion of the property to be considered as the pre-donation property (the total amount of deposit claims, such as the property of KRW 470,000,

E. After an analysis of financial data on deposits in the name of the plaintiff, the designated party, and other inheritors, the defendant added to the amount of the inheritance tax calculated by regarding the aggregate of KRW 470,00,000 as the deposit claims listed in the separate sheet in the name of the plaintiff, the designated party and the deceased's children, ○○, and ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "each of the deposit claims in this case") as the donated property in advance, and calculated the amount of the inheritance tax determined by deducting KRW 67,293,742, and deducted KRW 28,75,480, the inheritance tax was imposed and notified to the plaintiff and the designated party on August 12, 2005.

F. On November 14, 2005, the designated parties appealed to the International Tribunal, but on May 26, 2006, the decision was made on May 26, 2006.

In addition to the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff, the appointed person, and the actual owner of each of the instant deposit claims under the name of ○○, and ○○○, each of the instant deposit claims should be included in the inherited property. Although the Defendant should take a deduction for inheritance of financial property corresponding to each of the instant deposit claims in the disposition of this case, it is unlawful to deem that the Plaintiff and the designated person received a prior donation, and to impose the instant disposition of this case.

B. Determination

The fact that the source of funds of each of the instant deposit claims is compensation for real estate owned by the decedent in Seoul ○○○○-○○○○○○○○, the decedent is also the plaintiff. After the Emergency Financial and Economic Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by the Presidential Emergency Order No. 16, Aug. 13, 1993; hereinafter referred to as "Emergency Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 1997; hereinafter referred to as "Emergency Order") took effect, a person who intends to make a deposit in a financial institution shall, in principle, participate in the resident registration certificate and seal impression, and make a deposit in his own name at the financial institution. Even if a proxy is permitted to make a deposit in his/her own name with his/her resident registration certificate and seal impression, a financial institution should be deemed as a trader under Article 3(1) of the Emergency Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, barring any special circumstance.

However, even after the enforcement of the Emergency Order, if there is an express or implied agreement between the contributor of the deposit and the financial institution to vest in the claim for the return of the deposit in the name of the person who is not the deposit title holder, it is still deemed that the person who is not the deposit title holder has the deposit claim as the deposit owner, and that the person who is not the deposit title holder has made the donation of the fund to the deposit title holder is different from each other. After the enforcement of the tension Order, the deposit title holder is in a position to claim the right of the deposit in the deposit at any time and to withdraw the deposit (the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination). In particular, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff, the designated person, and other inheritors have withdrawn the deposit by exercising each of the deposit claims in this case before the death of the decedent, and there is no reason to view that the Plaintiff’s deposit account was transferred to the account in the name of the designated person after the expiration of May 204, 204, and that the Plaintiff’s deposit account was used in the name of the Plaintiff’s deposit title holder and the deposit account.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to take the instant disposition without taking the inheritance deduction of financial assets into account each of the instant deposit claims as prior donated property.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's revocation of the disposition of this case.