Appropriateness of a disposition on which deposit claims are imposed by deeming them as donated property in advance.

In full view of the fact that the decedent appears to have delivered the identification cards, etc. necessary for the opening of his deposit account in his name to the decedent or the plaintiff Kim ○○, it is difficult to believe that the decedent was a woman to have a right to each of the deposit claims in this case and to have lent only the name of the wife and children. There is no evidence to deem that each of the deposit claims in this case was owned by the decedent before the death of the decedent.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Scope of Donated Property)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 28,755,480 against the Plaintiffs on August 12, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On September 5, 2002, 2002, the plaintiff Kim○○, the wife of the inheritee, submitted to the Defendant a return of inheritance tax base and a notification on the inheritance tax base with respect to KRW 67,293,742 of inheritance tax calculated by adding the taxable value of the inherited property to KRW 1,522,895,108, the taxable value of the inherited property to KRW 1,522,895,108, the taxable value of the inherited property to KRW 423,854,120, and the inheritor of the inheritee to whom the inheritee was the wife of the inheritee was the wife, after consultation on the division of inherited property on November 15, 2002. The plaintiff Kim○○, the wife of the inheritee, succeeded to most of the inherited property, among the inherited property of the inheritee Kim○○, the wife of the inheritee, and agreed to waive all of the heirss.

C. The Defendant collected 202,937,149 won and 450,000 won and 450,000 won and 79,000 won and 79,477,082 won and 78,47,000 won and 78,000 won and 42,270,000 won and 78,000 won and 78,031,758 won and 42,270,000 won are each to be imposed on the inheritor, etc. among the details of the above report of inheritance tax.

D. On January 14, 2005, the plaintiffs dissatisfied with the notice of the results of the tax investigation, and filed a request for pre-assessment review to the defendant on January 14, 2005. On May 6, 2005, the defendant received an application from the plaintiffs with respect to the portion of KRW 202,937,149 of donated property which was omitted in the return of inheritance tax on May 6, 2005. However, on the portion of KRW 470,00,000 (the total amount of deposit claims, such as the property of KRW 450,000,000, increased as a result of the deposit claim or investigation, such as the property of KRW 450,000,00), the plaintiffs and other inheritors,

E. After analyzing the financial data on deposits in the names of the plaintiffs and other inheritors, the defendant added to the amount of inheritance tax determined by deeming the aggregate of 470,000,000 won of the deposit claims listed in the separate deposit account list in the name of Y○○ and Yel○○, each of the children of the plaintiffs and their deceased (hereinafter referred to as "each of the deposit claims in this case") as the property which was previously donated, and added to the amount of inheritance tax determined by deducting the amount of 67,293,742 won of the amount of inheritance tax already paid by the plaintiffs, and notified the plaintiffs of 28,75,480 won of inheritance tax on August 12, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"). The plaintiff Kim ○-○ was dissatisfied with it and requested by the National Tax Tribunal on November 14, 2005 for adjudication on May 26, 2006.

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 1 through 9-2, Gap evidence No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The actual owners of each of the instant deposit claims in the name of the Plaintiffs, Yellow ○○, and Yellow ○○○. As such, each of the instant deposit claims should be included in the inherited property. Although the Defendant should take a deduction on inheritance of financial property corresponding to each of the instant deposit claims in imposing inheritance tax, it is unlawful to consider each of the said deposits as being donated in advance by the Plaintiffs, and to impose the instant tax disposition.

B. Determination

“The fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-○ Real Estate was the Plaintiffs, and it was difficult for the Plaintiffs to open the bank account under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to use the bank account under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s own name before the enactment of the Emergency Financial Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended on August 13, 1993 by Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 197) because it was difficult for each of the instant savings claims to open the bank account under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s own name and it was difficult for each of the instant decedent’s own rights to use the bank account under the name of ○○○○○○○○○’s own account. However, each of the Plaintiffs’ respective rights to deposit claims should be assumed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.