Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap68802 ( October 24, 2016)

National Tax Service Review Inheritance 2015-0010 (No. 27, 2015)

Where only the next-order successors exist due to the renunciation of senior successors, whether to apply inheritance tax deduction.

In the case of succession of subordinate heir due to the renunciation of succession of senior heir, it is unconstitutional that the value of the inherited property should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property when calculating the limit of the application of deduction of inheritance tax is within the scope of reasonable legislative discretion, so it is difficult to view that the principle of tax equality is violated or that the property rights of subordinate heir are infringed

Article 24 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply ceiling

Seoul High Court 2016Nu40650 Revocation of Disposition imposing inheritance tax

EOO and 2

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

March 24, 2016

September 21, 2016

October 26, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant revoked all the imposition of KRW 124,535,393 (including additional tax) of each inheritance tax against the plaintiffs on January 1, 2015 (in light of the plaintiff's assertion, the "disposition of imposition of KRW 373,606,170 against the plaintiff on January 1, 2015" refers to the imposition of unique inheritance tax (including additional tax) by the defendant against the plaintiff as co-inheritors.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") in the third fourth sentence is regarded as "the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act")".

○ The 373,606,170 won of Inheritance Tax Act and the 373,606,170 won of Inheritance Tax Act (including additional taxes) in the 3rd place of the 3rd place of the 6th place of the 3rd place of the 7th place of the 7th place of the 3rd place of the 124,535,393 won of Inheritance Tax Act (including additional taxes), respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the court's decision of the first instance except for the second instance court's decision as follows. Thus, this part of the court's decision is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 5th page 12 to 6th page 9 is as follows.

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for various inheritance deductions, such as basic deduction, spouse deduction, and lump sum deduction, to ensure the stable livelihood of surviving heirs by relaxing the economic impact of the deceased upon the death of the deceased. Meanwhile, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of legacy, etc. (including testamentary gift and donation) to a person who is not an heir and the value of the inherited property donated to such person within a certain period prior to the commencement of inheritance, shall be added to the value of the inherited property in order to prevent unfair avoidance of inheritance burden by high-rate tax rate, and that the inheritance tax should be calculated by adding the value of the inherited property to the heir and a person who is not an heir, for example, to ensure that inheritance deduction is recognized only within the actual inheritance value of the inherited property by taking account of the same purport of the inheritance tax and the value of the inherited property donated by the heir’s heir under subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 24 to the extent of the application of inheritance deduction (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201HunBa61, Jan. 30, 20202).

In addition, since the prior heir is living together with the decedent and the possibility of substantially receiving support from the decedent is relatively large, there is a need to relax the burden of inheritance for the stabilization of livelihood and the maintenance of livelihood after the decedent's death, while the junior heir's need to ease the burden of inheritance is relatively less than the prior heir. Therefore, considering the purport of the inheritance mutual aid system, the inheritance mutual aid in cases where the heir is inherited as originally and the subordinate heir is inherited due to the renunciation of inheritance may be set differently.

Considering the above points, Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is justifiable for the legislative purpose.

"B" in front of the 6th 10th math 10th math, and "B" in front of the 20th math math, respectively, shall add between the 19th math and the 20th math math math 19:

Article 27 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (C) provides that where an inheritor or testamentary donee is a lineal descendant other than a son or descendant of the inheritee, it is difficult to compare the two provisions with the same plane because Article 24 subparagraph 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which applies to the inheritor’s renunciation of inheritance by the inheritor, does not completely coincide with the legislative purpose, and it is difficult to compare the two provisions with the same aspect. In addition, where an ancestor’s inherited property is bequeathed to a grandchild despite his/her existence, the value of the testamentary gift is excluded from the scope of the inheritance deduction pursuant to Article 24 subparagraph 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as seen earlier, and at the same time, the amount of the testamentary gift property is also excluded from the scope of the inheritance deduction pursuant to Article 24 subparagraph 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 27 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be readily concluded that the inheritor’s burden is minor compared to Article 24 subparagraph 2 of the Inheritance Tax Act.

○ The 9th page shall be as shown in the attached Form.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.