The plaintiff's proof of the existence of the inheritance obligation is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

At the time of commencement of the inheritance, it refers to a debt that the decedent is deemed to have to have to have been ultimately borne and to have to be performed, and the liability for assertion as to the existence is on the part of the person liable for duty payment who contests the taxable value

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Guhap81383 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

Kim 00

o Head of the tax office

May 11, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 11, 2013, the Plaintiff reported inheritance tax on January 13, 2014 as follows.

B. From February 6, 2015 to May 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the decedent; (b) conducted an increase in the value of inherited property as indicated in the following table; and (c) denied part of the amount of the amount of the deduction, etc., on August 5, 2015, the taxable value of inherited property was determined and notified to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2015. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Regional Tax Office on November 2, 2015; (c) on February 10, 2015, the Director of the Regional Tax Office assessed the value of the apartment of this case among the inherited property as the inherited property as the inherited property, and assessed the amount of the reported amount as the inherited property; and (d) calculated the difference between the reported amount and the reported amount as the inherited property and the reported amount as the inherited property; and (d) the Defendant decided to grant the amount of the inheritance tax to the Plaintiff, including the debt debt 3o, the debt o, part of the obligation o.

D. Accordingly, on December 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reduced or corrected the O,O, andO among the O,O, andO members of the inheritance tax, which was decided and notified to the Plaintiff by using the taxable value of inherited property as O,O,O, andO as o,O, andO on the part of the O,O, andO members (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2016, but was dismissed on August 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 14, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although each obligation borne by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance should be deducted from the value of the inherited property, the instant disposition taken without deduction should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a loan from Oo,Oo, and repaid the Defendant’s total debts on behalf of Oo,Oo, andOwon. As such, the inheritee bears the obligation equivalent to the above O,O, andOwon (hereinafter “the first issue obligation”).

2) On April 25, 2012, the decedent borrowed o, o, o,00 won on the pretext of living expenses from o, o, and borne o, o, o,00 won (hereinafter “instant second-party obligation”) to o, o,00 won. 3) The Plaintiff employed nursing workers for the decedent from April 2012 to July 2013, and paid the total nursing expenses of o, o, o, and o, in addition to the management expenses of the instant apartment from December 2010 to June 2014, 2013, and o, o, o, o, and o, o, o, and oo o was paid on behalf of the decedent. From 2010 to 2013.

Since the decedent paid the sum of o,o,o, local tax o,o,o, andowon on behalf of the decedent, the decedent paid the above nursing expenses, management expenses, and taxes that the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the decedent (hereinafter referred to as the "third-party obligation of this case").

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) A loan was made under the name of the decedent or the Plaintiff as indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”) and the instant apartment house owned by the decedent was offered as security for each of the above loans.

2) On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) repaid the Plaintiff’s first loans under the name of the inheritee, ooo, ooo, and oowon under the name of the inheritee; and (b) on October 26, 2012, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage established on the instant apartment was cancelled on October 23, 2012, for the purpose of securing obligations under the first and second loans under the name of the inheritee and the inheritee; and (c) on October 26, 2012, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage established on the instant apartment was cancelled on October 23, 2012.

3) On April 25, 2007, the title bank account (Account Number 448-O-042, No. 448-O-042, hereinafter referred to as the "O bank account in the name of the decedent") was deposited into the o bank account in the name of the decedent. The main payment details thereafter and the deposit details of the o bank account in the name of the plaintiff for the same period (Account Number 1002-O-749328, hereinafter referred to as "O bank account in the name of the plaintiff") are as follows.

4) From February 19, 2008 to October 19, 2012, the Ho bank account under the name of the decedent of this case was deposited by oooo and oo on 57 occasions in the name of the plaintiff, and paid as the principal and interest of the loan No. 1 of this case.

5) On November 2, 2010, KRW 100,000 of the second loan was deposited in theo bank account (Account Number 06802-04-Oo, hereinafter referred to as the “O bank account under the name of the decedent”) under the name of the decedent. The main payment details and the principal deposit details of the O bank account under the name of the Plaintiff for the same period are as follows.

6) The interest of the instant loan No. 2 was paid at the o bank account under the name of the decedent, and 6,735,000 won was deposited in the said account in the name of the Plaintiff over 14 times after the said account became nonexistent on June 2, 2011, and the said loan was paid as the interest of the said loan.

7) The Plaintiff, prior to the commencement of the inheritance, played a role in managing the funds of the inheritee, such as cash withdrawal, on behalf of the inheritee whose health had not been good in the aged before the commencement of the inheritance. On December 31, 2012, the inheritee leased the above commercial buildings to the Plaintiff, etc. before the donation to the Plaintiff, etc. on December 31, 2012, 3.3 million won per month.

8) On April 25, 2012, 2012, O0 won was transferred to the o bank account under the name of the decedent of this case. On April 26, 2012, the following day, the major details of the o bank account and the same date are as follows:

9) There are details of the transaction of entry and withdrawal with Bao, such as the following table, in the o bank account under the name of the Plaintiff of this case.

10) On May 1, 2015, Whiteo prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the following contents (hereinafter referred to as “instant confirmation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, Eul evidence No. 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The amount of an inheritee’s obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property refers to an obligation for which it is deemed certain that the inheritee would have to ultimately bear and perform, at the time of commencing the inheritance. The liability for proving the existence of such obligation lies in the person liable for duty payment who contests the taxable value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9886, Sept. 24, 2004).

The loan of this case Nos. 1 and 2 with the decedent as the debtor, and the loan of this case No. 3 made in the name of the plaintiff and the fact that oooo and ooo had been repaid by the aggregate of the loans of this case No. 1 and 2 with the loan of this case No. 3 in the name of the plaintiff is as seen earlier.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view the above facts alone as bearing obligations equivalent to the above repayment amount to the plaintiff at the time of commencing the inheritance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① As indicated in the table in paragraphs (3) and (5) of the above 2-C, it appears that part of the withdrawals of the loans of Articles 1 and 2 of this case was made by the Plaintiff’s bank account under the name of the decedent of this case or at the time when the loans of this case were withdrawn, and that it was used to pay the Plaintiff’s card payment. Considering the fact that part of the withdrawals of the loans of this case Nos. 1 and 2 of this case appears to have been made by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff failed to clearly state the source of cash deposited in the o bank account under the name of the Plaintiff of this case, as seen above, it appears that the Plaintiff deposited part of the loans of this case Nos. 1 and 2 into the account under its own name and used it for personal purpose.

② Some of the loans of this case deposited into the o bank account under the name of the decedent in this case was directly transferred to the o bank account under the name of the plaintiff in this case [the part of KRW 8 million on October 5, 2007 and KRW 2 million on November 29, 2007 in the table in Article 2-3 of the above Act]. ③ Considering the age, economic capacity, etc. of the decedent, it is not difficult for the decedent to receive large amount of loans of this case 1 and 2, there is no evidence to deem that the decedent used each of the loans for the purpose of the decedent, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff used the loans for each of the above loans for the purpose of the decedent in consideration of the fact that there was no evidence to support that the decedent used each of the above loans for the purpose of the decedent, and that the plaintiff, not after each of the loans of this case 1 and 2, has repaid the principal and interest of each of the above loans.

There is a large room.

④ Ultimately, the Plaintiff appears to have additionally received the instant apartment loan No. 3, which was owned by the inheritee, and actually repaid the obligation of the instant loans Nos. 1 and 2, which was used by himself, as seen above, and there is no evidence suggesting that the inheritee was liable to the Plaintiff due to the said repayment by the Plaintiff.

3) Determination of the second issue debt of this case

On April 25, 2012, Doo transferred Doo in the name of the decedent of this case to the Do bank account under the name of the decedent of this case, and the fact that Doo transferred Doo and Doo only to the Doo bank account under the name of the decedent of this case, but still has not been paid the principal amount, is the fact that Doo prepared and executed the written confirmation of this case to the plaintiff.

However, it is recognized in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 8 and all pleadings.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is difficult for the inheritee to view that the inheritee bears the obligation of O0,000 won at the time of the commencement of the inheritance solely based on the foregoing facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① In light of the following facts: (a) Mao transferred the KRW o0,000 to the National Bank Account in the name of the decedent in this case by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 7 million among them to the Maoo who works for his company on the same day; (b) the Plaintiff deposited KRW 15 million in cash in the O bank account in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff, and the said money was used in the payment for the Plaintiff’s card payment, etc.; and (c) the Plaintiff did not disclose the source of cash deposited in the O bank account in the name of the Plaintiff in this case, it is reasonable to deem that most of the above Oo only transferred by the Plaintiff used by the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff asserted that the decedent borrowed 30 million won from OO under the name of living expenses of the decedent. However, considering the age, property status, etc. of the decedent, it is not necessary for the decedent to borrow 30 million won from OO under the name of living expenses of the decedent, and there is no evidence to deem that OO was used by the decedent as living expenses of the decedent.

③ The instant confirmation document is merely a document that has been prepared for a considerable period from the time when Ba transferred o0,000 to the o bank account under the name of the decedent of this case. Moreover, even according to the above confirmation document, the Plaintiff decided to pay O0,000 to Oo. The Plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate, a monetary loan contract, etc. to verify the claim and obligation relationship between the decedent and the abuse of O0,000 won.

④ Prior to the transfer of 0 million won to the instanto bank account under the name of the decedent, the Plaintiff has been engaged in money transactions with Ba over several occasions.

4) Determination on the third-party debt of this case

In light of the above evidence, the evidence Nos. 11 through 13 submitted by the Plaintiff in relation to the obligation at issue of the third issue is merely merely a nursing fact and nursing fee, or merely a payment of national taxes and local taxes imposed on the instant apartment management fee and the inheritee. Each of the above evidence alone is difficult to view that the Plaintiff paid the inheritee’s nursing expenses, management fees of the instant apartment, and taxes imposed on the inheritee on the inheritee, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 9, it is recognized that the sum of the management expenses of the apartment of this case was paid by oooo and oooo from 2010 to 2013, from o bank accounts in the name of the decedent, from o bank accounts in the name of the decedent to o bank accounts in the name of the decedent, to ooo and ooo were paid only from o bank accounts in the name of the decedent to o bank accounts in the name of the decedent to 7, 2012.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the issues of this case ought to be deducted from the value of inherited property is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.