If the nominal and actual employer of a loan obligation are different, who shall be deemed to be a loan obligation

Because the heir actually used the debt borrowed under the name of the decedent, and the heir has transferred the principal and interest to the account of the decedent, the heir's debt constitutes the heir's debt.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Public Imposts, etc. Deducted from Value of Inherited Property)

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 84,005,90 against Plaintiff Kim Young-soo on November 3, 2004, 709,863 of the inheritance tax amounting to KRW 34,946,590 of the imposition disposition of KRW 41,724,820 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Plaintiff Kim Young-soo, KRW 17,473,295 of the imposition disposition of KRW 226,321,50 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Plaintiff Kim Young-soo, KRW 34,946,59 of the amount exceeding KRW 41,722,82,827 of the imposition disposition of KRW 20,862,410 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Plaintiff ○○, and KRW 226,321,550 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Plaintiff Kim Young-○.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 84,05,990 on November 3, 2004 against Plaintiff Kim○○, and KRW 41,724,820 on each of the 41,724,820 won against Plaintiff Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○, and KRW 226,321,550 on each of the 20,862,410 on the Plaintiff Yu○, and KRW 226,321,550 on each of the Plaintiff Kim○.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

1. Details of taxation; and

A. On December 19, 198, the Plaintiffs, who are the children or grandchildren (including foreign grandchildren) of ○○○○, died, were calculated as KRW 1,220,778,920 on June 18, 199, and calculated as KRW 720,778,920 on the taxable value of inherited property, and accordingly, reported the amount calculated as KRW 91,233,120 on the inheritance tax basis based on the amount of KRW 720,778,920, which was calculated as a lump sum deduction of KRW 500 million as an inheritance tax base.

Gu Sector

amount of gold

Inherited Property

Value (A)

○○○○○○○○○ 2, among buildings with 1/2 square meters and 134.9 square meters and 3rd floors above its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant ○○○ real estate”), each of the 1/2 shares, 1/2 shares of ○○○ ○○ 1, 284 square meters, and 2nd floor above its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant ○○ ○○ 2”) other than 0-○ ○ 284.3 square meters, and land and financial assets of 9 lots, etc.

2,525,604,274 won

(B) including the amount of property disposed of before the commencement of the inheritance.

Use is objectively unclear

52,334,092 won

The value of donated property (C)

② Money borrowed from creditors Kim○-○, or Jeong○-○, in debt column, was donated to the Plaintiff Kim○-○.

200,000,000 won

Public charges, etc. (D) deducted from inherited property;

(1) Funeral expenses.

8,707,420 won

(2) Obligations

The obligation to refund the security deposit to Jin○ under the real estate lease agreement on the real estate at ○○dong.

40,000,000 won

In relation to the instant ○○ Dong real estate, the obligation against Kim○-○ and Jong-○ on March 3, 1998, based on the right to collateral security (right to collateral security).

200,000,000 won

A debt to ○ bank based on the right to collateral security on March 9, 1998 on ○○ Dong real property of this case

500,000,000

Bonds for ○○

14,285,710 won

(3) Total sum.

762,993,130 won

Taxable value of inherited property (E = A + B + C -D)

2,014,945,236 won

B. On the other hand, the defendant examined the plaintiff's inherited property, and calculated the taxable value of inherited property as KRW 2,014,945,236, and on November 3, 2004, on the other hand, calculated the taxable value of inherited property as follows: KRW 84,005,90; KRW 41,724,820 for each of the plaintiff's Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○, and KRW 226,321,50 for each of the plaintiff's inherited property.

C. At the time of the death of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate: (a) the establishment registration of a collateral security (the actual loan amount shall be KRW 460,000,000), which was the wife of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a debtor, on February 17, 1998; (b) the establishment of a collateral security (the actual loan amount shall be KRW 250,000,000, which was the mortgagee of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate; (c) the debt amount of KRW 30,00,00 (the actual loan amount shall be KRW 250,000,000), which was written out of the debt amount of KRW 10,000,000 for each of the instant real estate.

D. After February 5, 2005, the Plaintiffs asserted that all the obligations of the Plaintiff 1 through 3 of this case were ○○○○○○’s obligations, and the Defendant raised an objection against the above disposition of inheritance tax. Around July 15, 2005, the Defendant, among the maximum debt amount of the first debt of this case, 125,000,000 won corresponding to 1/2 of the ownership of the instant ○○○○○○○○○ Real Property, and 114,070 won of the tax debt of this case, and 52,334,092 won included in the calculation that the use of the property prior to the commencement of inheritance is objectively unclear, shall be excluded from the taxable value of inheritance, thereby reducing the remaining portions of the inheritance tax to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ by 70,409,863 won, Plaintiff 34,946, ○○○○, Kim○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1-6, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the part on which revocation of the reduced or corrected portion of the instant taxation disposition was sought

Since a disposition of reduction and correction, which was taken after the initial disposition, has an effect of revoking part of the original disposition (the reduced part), the part seeking revocation of the disposition of reduction and correction, which exceeds KRW 17,473,29,62,82,827 against the Plaintiff Kim ○○, among the lawsuits in this case, exceeds KRW 34,946,59,59, 700, 346,596, 300, 17, 473, 295, and 189,62,82, and 827 against the Plaintiff Kim○, among the lawsuits in this case, is invalid as there is no benefit in the lawsuit, since there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) As to the first debt of this case

The first debt of this case is the money loaned by ○○○○, a lessee of the instant real estate, to return KRW 250,000,000 to ○○○ Island (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Island”). The total debt amount is 125,000,000,000, which is 1/2 of the equity interest in the instant real estate and ○○○○○, and the total debt amount is ○○○’s debt amount, and is 1/2 of the equity interest in the instant real estate.

(2) As to the second debt of this case

The second debt of this case was loaned to the plaintiff Kim-○, who was an infant who failed in the business of this case by this ○○, to donate it to the plaintiff Kim-○. The debt of this case was not the debt of this ○○ but the debt of the plaintiff Kim○-○.

(3) As to the third debt of this case

The third debt of this case is the debt of this case ○○ and is not the debt of Plaintiff Kim○-○.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant’s taxation disposition based on the premise that the liabilities of the first, second, and third parties in this case were not all obligations of the ○○○○ is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) Details of the change in ownership of ○○ Real Estate

(A) On February 11, 1964 with respect to the instant ○○○ real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of “the inheritance on July 11, 1966,” and on the ground of “the inheritance on July 11, 1966.”

(B) Around 1980, Kim ○ acquired citizen rights by moving to the United States and living in the United States, and entered into a contract to sell one half of the 1/2 shares out of the instant ○○○ real estate on March 17, 1995, while residing in the United States. According to this, the Plaintiff Kim ○○ assumed the collateral security obligation of KRW 150,000,000 on the instant ○○ real estate, and paid KRW 450,00,000 to Kim ○○, by March 20, 1995, and imposed tax and public charges, such as transfer income tax, which will be imposed on Kim ○, due to the transfer of the said real estate shares.

(C) After that, on March 20, 1995, Plaintiff Kim○○ paid KRW 373,000,000 to Kim○○○ on 20th of 1995, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 27,000,000 out of the remainder of KRW 77,000,000 within three months, and KRW 50,000,000 within two years.

(D) However, on September 14, 1995, Plaintiff Kim ○, who did not pay any balance, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “trade on March 20, 1995” with respect to 1/2 of the instant real estate by using the certificate of the Kim ○○’s personal seal impression and blank delegation letter, etc.

(E) In around 1996, ○○○○ filed a civil lawsuit against the Plaintiff Kim○-○ in order to cancel the above transfer registration, and the same court rendered a judgment on December 20, 1996, and on the ground that “The above transfer registration was null and void, but the sales contract was lawfully rescinded by the intention of cancellation of the transfer registration on the ground that he did not bear any tax and public charges such as transfer income tax,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff Kim○-○ was paid KRW 373,000,000 from Kim○-○ in return for the payment of KRW 373,00,000 from Kim○-○, thereby complying with the procedure for cancellation of the transfer registration.”

(F) After that, in the appellate trial of the above civil procedure, Kim○-○ and the Plaintiff Kim○-○ concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 860,00,00 with respect to one-half of the instant real estate, the court agreed that the said registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff Kim○-○’s name is useful for registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

(G) L. Plaintiff Kim ○-○ directly occupied and used part of the instant real estate from before the date of conclusion of the said sales contract in the process of the said civil procedure, and the remainder was leased to the lessee and received deposit and monthly rent from the lessee, thereby using and making profits from the said real estate, and the fact that the monthly rent of the instant ○○ real estate was a total of KRW 17,00,000 (Records 290 pages) did not dispute this (Records).

(2) As to the first and second obligations of this case

(A) As seen earlier, with respect to the entire share of this case ○○ and the Plaintiff Kim ○○, as to the entire share of the instant real estate, KRW 250,00,000 loaned by ○○○○○○ and the Plaintiff Kim ○○ as a collateral with the right to collateral security, which was completed on February 17, 1998, was used for the return of the deposit on the first floor of the instant real estate as follows (B). ② The debtor, who was completed on March 3, 1998, extended a loan of KRW 250,000,000, extended by ○○○○○○ Bank as collateral with the right to collateral security, was used for the repayment of other loans to Plaintiff Kim○○ Bank as well as the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000.

(B) On March 195, 1995, a lease contract was concluded with ○○○○○, Lessee, ○○land, 1995, 12 months from March 20, 1995, and 250,000 won for the first floor among the instant ○○-dong real estate. Thereafter, ○○land notified the termination of the lease contract around January 22, 1998, and around February 17, 1998, the said lease deposit was returned to KRW 250,000,000, which was loaned from ○○ bank as security by the debtor.

(3) As to the third debt of this case

(A) On September 12, 1991, the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant ○○○○○○, which was owned by ○○○○○○○, was completed on September 12, 1991, No. 210,000 won for the maximum debt amount, the debtor Lee○○, and the first time, which was owned by ○○○○○○○○○○ Bank, on August 20, 1992, the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was completed, and the establishment of a mortgage on the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was completed on November 22, 195, with regard to the said 2nd priority registration changed from the debtor to ○○○○○○○ on the ground of “Assumption’s assumption of obligation”.

(B) Thereafter, around November 30, 1995, the instant ○ Dong.

A loan of KRW 300,00,000 has been executed under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ as a security, and KRW 185,00,000 has been withdrawn on December 1, 1995; KRW 102,108,956 out of the above loans was repaid on July 12, 1997; KRW 102,891,044 out of the above loans was repaid on September 28, 1997; KRW 195,00,000 (=300,000-102,108,956-2,891,044) deposited on October 30, 1998; KRW 106,000 in the name of ○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1965,000,000,000 from the loan deposited on September 28, 1997.

(C) Meanwhile, Plaintiff ○○○○-○○-○○-○○-○-○○-○○-○-○○-○-○-○○-○-○-○) opened a savings account (○○-○-○-○), etc. on October 31, 1995, ① KRW 5,000,000 on December 29, 1995, ② KRW 4,000,000 on December 29, 3, 1996, ④ Around 7,50,000,000 on January 29, 1996, ④ Around nine times from March 29, 1996 to December 30, 196, each of the above ○○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○’s loans was set aside.

[Ground of recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 11, 17 through 19, 21, Eul's evidence Nos. 6 through 10, the court of first instance's personal credit management division, and the head of Seoul Immigration Office's fact-finding results, the whole purport of the arguments and arguments

D. Determination

(1) As to the first debt of this case

Although only ○○○○○ entered into a lease agreement with a lessee on March 1995 with respect to the first floor among the instant real estate ○○○○○○○○○○ was entered into by the lessee on March 1, 1995, the following facts are considered to have been used and profited from the whole of the instant real estate by directly occupying and using the part of the instant real estate before the conclusion of the said lease agreement, and by leasing the remainder to the lessee and receiving the deposit and monthly rent from the lessee, and ② The instant first debt was carried out with the Plaintiff Kim○○○ as the debtor, not the instant ○○○○○○, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s debt out of the instant first debt as the Defendant’s debt exceeding the KRW 125,00,000,000, excluding the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiffs’ assertion against this is not acceptable.

(2) As to the second debt of this case

Since the debt 2 of this case was only used to repay his debt by being loaned under the name of the plaintiff Kim○○ and then used to repay his debt, it cannot be viewed as the debt 2 of this case (the plaintiff asserts that the debt 2 of this case was loaned under the name of the plaintiff Kim○○, and the loan 250,000,000 won was donated to the plaintiff Kim○○, but even if such assertion is true, the above loan 250,000 won should also be included in the taxable value of inherited property of the heir). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion against this is not acceptable.

(3) As to the third debt of this case

Although the third debt of this case was extended to ○○○ as an obligor, one of the two collateral mortgages securing the above debt is the obligor, and later, the obligor took over the debt and changed to ○○○○○○. ② The third debt of this case is merely the interest accrued from the account transfer made by the Plaintiff Kim○○ through the passbook in the name of ○○○○○○, or the principal was partially repaid, and there is no evidence suggesting that the funds of this case were used by ○○○○○○○○. ③ The Plaintiffs asserted that the money transferred to ○○○○○○○’s passbook in the name of ○○○○○○○ was settled for the rent of ○○○○’s share out of the real estate of this case. However, the Plaintiff appears to have used ○○○○○○ as seen earlier, and the obligation of this case was not considered to have been settled by account transfer in light of the amount of the debt of this case and the monthly amount of the debt of this case.

The plaintiffs' assertion against this is not acceptable.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant taxation disposition is lawful.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax in excess of KRW 17,473,295, and KRW 182,827 against the plaintiff Kim ○○, which is in excess of KRW 70,409,863 against the plaintiff Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○, respectively, shall be dismissed, and the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax against the plaintiff Kim○, Kim○, which is in excess of KRW 17,473,295, and the plaintiff Kim○, which is in excess of KRW 189,62,827, shall be dismissed, and the remaining claim of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as of the ground for appeal. Since the judgment in the

public official law, order of law,

○ Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6048 of Dec. 28, 1999)

Article 13 (Taxable Amount for Inheritance Taxes)

(1) The taxable amount of inheritance taxes shall be the amount obtained by deducting the amounts under the provisions of Article 14 from the amount of added value of inherited property under the following subparagraphs:

1. The value of property donated by an ancestor to his/her heir within ten years before the commencement date;

2. The value of property donated by an ancestor to a person other than his/her heir within five years before commencing the inheritance.

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Public Charges, etc. Deducted from Value of Inherited Property)

(1) Where inheritance commences due to the death of a resident, the value or expenses falling under any of the following subparagraphs related to the inherited property shall be subtracted from the value of the inherited property:

1. Public imposts;

2. Funeral expenses; and

3. The end of debts (excluding the donation debts owed by an ancestor to his/her heir within ten years before the commencement date of inheritance, and the donation debts owed by an ancestor to a person other than his/her heir within five years before the commencement date of inheritance; hereafter the same shall apply in this