The deposit account of this case is substantially owned by the Plaintiff, and the deposit is not inherited property.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances, the instant deposit account is owned by the Plaintiff and the money deposited in the said deposit account is deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and it cannot be included in the inherited property.

Articles 13 and 15 of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act; the scope of property or debts included in the taxable value of the inheritance tax under Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax

2015Guhap22507 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

HaO

Head of PP Tax Office

February 23, 2016

March 22, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 47,177,90 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014 is revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As the AA (hereinafter “the inheritee”) died on July 3, 201 X, the Plaintiff, a spouse, was jointly inherited the inheritee’s property with his/her children.

B. On November 10, 2011, when the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base and amount of inheritance tax to the Defendant, the Plaintiff reported the taxable value at KRW 637,60X,32X to be below taxation.

C. On the ground that the Defendant did not objectively explain the place of use regarding KRW 70X,87X,707, which was withdrawn by the decedent within two years from the commencement date of inheritance, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014, the amount calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to 20 percent of the said amount pursuant to Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012) as the estimated inherited property that was disposed of before the commencement of inheritance, and added the amount of non-reported declaration to the amount of KRW 47,17X,99,00 as shown below.

D. Accordingly, on April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 19, 2015, but was dismissed on July 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As property before the commencement of the inheritance, the Defendant’s BB bank account in the name of the deceased (BB bank 68-x-0126232, 668-x-0028120, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant deposit account”) was held in title in the name of the deceased. Accordingly, money in the instant deposit account is not inherited property.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From January 1, 200 X, the decedent had been engaged in real estate rental business since 2008 and has been engaged in rental business as an employee of theCC industry operated by the Plaintiff.

2) The annual income amount of the inheritee is as follows:

3) The Plaintiff operated theCC industry from June 2, 1998 to July 1, 2010. The annual income amount is as follows (for comparison of the income amount with the decedent, entry from 2003 to 2003).

4) The main contents of the financial transaction of the inheritee, including the instant deposit account (hereinafter referred to as “the instant account”) are as follows.

5) On August 2, 2008, BB bank account (Account Number 668-xx-0175468) in the Plaintiff’s name was transferred from the instant account to KRW 250,519,70 on August 2, 2008. On the same day, additional loans were deposited from KRW 464,931,00 on the same day. In addition, the said day was transferred to KRW 740,000 on the pretext of “pro rata”.

6) On the other hand, on June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff sold DDR 632-3 large 254 square meters to 177,000,000 won, which he own, to Dajin-dong, DDR 632-3 large 254 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 14, 2008, and on June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff sold the registration of ownership transfer for 1109-10 large 241.3 square meters, which he own, to Gaju-dong 135,000,000 won, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 23, 2008.

7) 또한 원고는 2008. 7. 17. 고GG로부터 DD EE구 FF2동 24XX 답 13XX㎡를 840,000,0XX원에 매수하였는데, 계약 당일 이 사건 ① 계좌에서 100,000,0XX원이 수표로 인출되어 고GG의 계좌에 입금되었고, 2008. 8. XX. 위에서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 ③ 계좌에 있던 돈이 원고의 계좌로 이체된 다음 기존의 원고계좌에 있던 돈과 합쳐진 740,000,0XX원이 나머지 매매대금 명목으로 고GG 계좌로 이체되었으며, 같은 날 원고가 위 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

8) The Plaintiff’s BB bank account (Account Number 668-x-020938) in the name of the Plaintiff’s Hah-H (Account Number 668-x-020938) was transferred from the instant account to the 65,095, and the 65,095, and the 2 XX209. On the same day, the sum of the transferred money and the previous money were used as the repayment title of the loan that the Plaintiff received.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, and 20 (including each number), each of the response of each order to submit financial transaction information to BB Bank BPR Center Director, FFF Nong Branch Director of this Court, the purport of the whole arguments, as a whole.

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition as above, the instant deposit account is owned by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the money deposited in the said deposit account is deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff, rather than by the decedent, and it cannot be included in the inherited property.

1) The Plaintiff’s annual average income from 2003 to 2010 is 47,761, and 4 XX (382,091,7 XX). On the other hand, the inheritee is 6,474, and 1/8 (=51,793, XX3 x 1/8, and less than won) and the Plaintiff is more than 7 times than the inheritee.

2) At the time of July 1, 2008, the remaining amount of the account of this case was limited to KRW 4,075,60,000,000,000 on the same day. However, given that a large amount of money related to the real estate was actually discontinued since the financial condition of the decedent at the time, in particular, since 2008, it is difficult to view that the decedent provided the said money by the decedent.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff had much more income than the inheritee, and in particular, it seems that the Plaintiff acquired a considerable amount of money as it sold the site of DJJJ-Gu KRdong site and LLM-dong site at the same time.

4) Ultimately, the above KRW 250,000,00 was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account via the instant account, and then was combined with the money previously loaned to the Plaintiff, and was used as the sales balance of the DE EE-gu F2’s land purchased by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the down payment of KRW 100,000,000 was also paid from the instant account ①.

5) Following the Plaintiff’s transfer from the instant account to the HaH account, 65,095, and 2 XX, the Plaintiff was used to repay the loan.

6) In addition to the circumstances such as the relationship between the Plaintiff and the inheritee, the degree of financial resources, and the existence of real estate transactions, it is difficult to view that the Defendant donated the said money to the Plaintiff. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff made a transaction by using the inheritee’s account.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the amount withdrawn by the decedent within 2 years prior to the commencement of inheritance is objectively unclear. The reason why the use is objectively unclear is 3,431,00,00 won withdrawn from the NNN branch of the DNA bank that does not expressly dispute its existence and value. Even if this is included in the taxable value of inherited property, it is apparent in the calculation that the tax base would be (-) where the aggregate of 1,020,000,000 won is deducted pursuant to Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, the disposition of this case that determined and notified the Plaintiff’s taxable value exceeds 1,02,00,000,000 won, deeming that the taxable value of inherited property exceeds 205,190,70 won, which is the excess portion, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.