Daegu District Court-2013-Shap-9257 (No. 15, 2014)

In order for a creditor to exercise the debtor's monetary claim in subrogation, it must meet the requirements such as the right of preservation, the right of subrogation, the debtor's insolvency, etc.

(As in the judgment of the first instance), in order for a creditor to exercise the debtor's pecuniary claim in subrogation, the creditor satisfies the requirements such as the right to be preserved, the right of subrogation, the debtor's insolvency, etc.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Na21299 National Tax Refund

○ ○

Republic of Korea and 6

The term “six persons, including AA, AB, RCC, RD, HE, HE, and HF (hereinafter referred to as “FA”).

C) Upon receiving each of the above money from Defendant Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff shall pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

D. (Plaintiffs amended the purport of the claim in the trial. Plaintiff’s claim and claim on May 7, 2015

See an application for change in the cause.

The total amount of the inheritance tax refund and additional dues on refund to six persons, including AA, shall be KRW 726,287,875, and the names thereof.

(2) The defendant Republic of Korea is entitled to pay the annual amount of damages to six persons, including the defendant AA.

from the aggregate of the refund and additional refund of inheritance tax, 726,287,875 won and delay damages.

If the Plaintiff receives such money, it is demanded to pay the money to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) The Plaintiff’s refund amount of the gift tax of this case is the amount of six persons, including YA, etc. by the fourth correction disposition.

There is no evidence that it is deemed that the tax notice was appropriated.

Rather, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the refund amount of the gift tax of this case is the heir such as the plaintiff.

(1) If the property is appropriated to the notified amount of inheritance tax, the property is immediately after the fourth revised disposition, and the property is appropriated by the fourth revised disposition.

[1] 1,481,134,926 Won 1,561,059,866 of the total inheritance tax on the deceased et al. (increased for the plaintiff)

Amount of notified tax) - 10,866, 990 won (amount of reduced tax for YY) - 69,057,950 won (13,81,590

source x 5 MaW, Defendant AA, YB clinicalCC, and PED) trends due to the amount of reduction notice

(1) The additional notice of each inheritor's additional tax amount to be given to the Plaintiff shall be 1,561,059,866 won in the case of the Plaintiff

The amount was reduced by 10,866,90 won in the case of YY, and YW, YA, YB, YB, YCC, and

The gift tax of this case was reduced by 13,811,590 won, respectively. Accordingly, the gift tax of this case was refunded.

942,009,770 won 1,561,059 of the Plaintiff’s notified amount of inheritance tax increased by a disposition of 4th rectification in full;

866(s) notice of six (6) inheritance tax, including Defendant A, which was appropriated for 866(s) and has been reduced by the fourth rectification

There is no room to be appropriated for tax amount (as seen earlier: according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the third corrective disposition is based on the third corrective disposition.

The total inheritance tax amounting to KRW 2,323,979,105 was notified to the heir such as the plaintiff, etc., if so,

2,324,018,590 won shall be collected from the heir, such as the plaintiff, in excess of the total amount of the inheritance tax notified.

(1)

In addition, in addition to the appropriation of the gift tax refund of this case by the plaintiff, six awards such as defendant AA, etc.

There is no evidence to prove that the notice tax was paid, and in particular, the plaintiff is the defendant.

The date and amount to be paid in relation to the payment of the inheritance tax notified amount by six persons, such as A.

Nos. 1 and 2 are not specified. Rather, the fact inquiry by the court of first instance and the fact inquiry by the court of first instance.

In full view of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the reply by the director of the Nam Daegu Tax Office, inheritance tax payment

The net income tax table appropriated as the Plaintiff’s gift tax refund among the details of payment of the inheritance tax indicated in the amount table.

1 The gift tax refund of this case 942,009,770 won has been appropriated only for the amount of the gift tax notified,

ss) Inheritance tax is recognized as having been paid under the name of YY and Defendant YD, and inheritance by the Plaintiff

971,463,149 won, part of the tax amount of the disposition of this case entered in the detailed statement of disposition of this case

Only 475,751,870 Won (942,09,770 Won - 466,257,900) was paid (Paw)

JA et al. asserts that the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 1,530,772,888, however, that:

1,530,772,888 Won 466,257,900 refunded money out of the refund of the gift tax of this case and such improper act

81,302,364 won shall be deducted from the total amount of 415,04,464 won returned through a lawsuit to return profits.

J only paid 649,470,524 won (1,530,772,888 Won - 881,302,364).

2) If so, the refund amount of the gift tax of this case is calculated on the inheritance tax notified by six persons, including Defendant A, etc.

In addition to appropriation of the gift tax refund of this case by the Plaintiff, six inheritance tax including Defendant AA, etc.

Under the premise that the notified tax was paid, the return of unjust enrichment or the payment of the indemnity shall be sought.

The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against 6 persons, including the defendant A, is without merit.

On the other hand, on the part of the defendant on behalf of six (6) persons such as AA, the defendant A, etc. against the Republic of Korea

26,287,875 won in total shall be paid to six persons of inheritance tax refunds and additional charges on refund.

of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea

Inheritance Tax refunds to the State and additional dues on refund to the State in subrogation of claims for payment of KRW 726,287,875.

the creditor's subrogation right of the plaintiff, who is a preserved claim of the creditor's subrogation right, has a claim against 6 persons, such as AA.

Therefore, it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's primary claim is due to the change of the plaintiff's claim in the trial.

The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against 6 persons, including the defendant AA, shall be dismissed due to the lack of any reasonable ground.

F. The decision of the first instance court is to be modified as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

2015.06.19

1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified following the change of claims in the plaintiff's trial.

A. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant AA, AB, RB, RCC, RD, EE, and HF is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 726,287,875 and KRW 475,751,870 among them.

From May 1, 2015 to May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s filing of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim

2.5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

D. The payment of money is made.

Preliminary Claim: Defendant AA, AB, ACC, and AD, respectively.

145,257,575 won, Defendant E-E, and Chapter F, respectively, for each of the said amounts of KRW 72,628,787 and for each of the said amounts.

1. From May 7, 2015 to May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s request for receipt and the date of serving a duplicate of the application for modification.

2.5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Circumstances and details of imposition of inheritance tax;

1) The RP died on November 13, 1993. The Plaintiff, Nonparty Y, Defendant Y, before the water transfer (hereinafter referred to as “Z”), and YA, YB (W prior to the opening of the name), YB (hereinafter referred to as “heirs such as the Plaintiff, etc.”) jointly inherited their property as the wife and children of the net X.

2) On August 1, 1996, the director of the tax office of Daegu imposed and notified (hereinafter referred to as the “original disposition”) the inheritance tax amount of 3,155,402,21 won (this is the notified tax amount, and the total determined tax amount of 3,325,402,211 won and the voluntary payment tax amount of 170,00,000 won, 3,325,402,211) on August 1, 1996 3, but the original disposition, the first correction, the second correction, and the third correction were 96, 400, 96, 196, 196, 305, 96, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 3, 196, 196, 3, 105, 196, 196, 196, 14, 705, 1306, 14, 7

4) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the total amount of notice of the fourth correction disposition was KRW 3,805,114,031, as seen earlier. 3,369,390,130 won ( KRW 3,805, KRW 114,031- KRW 435,723,901) was reduced by KRW 3,805,386 won ( KRW 3,369,390, KRW 130, KRW 50, KRW 5036, KRW 50, KRW 5086, KRW 50, KRW 2640, KRW 3685, KRW 369, KRW 50, KRW 130, KRW 50, KRW 509, KRW 50, KRW 509, KRW 264) was reduced by the fifth correction disposition on May 6, 2002. 3, KRW 1638, KRW 19636, KRW 1638, KRW 16396365, KRW 16367,6963638, KRW

(b) Payment of inheritance tax;

1) From September 30, 1996 to November 30, 201, the director of the tax office of Daegu has collected 3,283,437,140 won in total over 19 times through the delinquent procedure as set out in paragraphs 2 to 20 of the following table of payment of inheritance tax and appropriated 2,324,018,590 won in notice of inheritance tax (3,283,437,140 - 959,418,550 won in total) and 2,324,018,590 won in notice of payment of inheritance tax (3,283,437,140 - 959,418,550 won in total). 2) On March 11, 2002, the director of the tax office of Daegu has made an increase in inheritance tax amount to KRW 3,805,114,310, 2003. 41.

3) 그 결과 남대구세무서장이 2002. 4. 1. 현재 아래 상속세납부내역표의 기재와 같이 합계 4,225,446,910원을 징수하여 가산금 959,418,550원과 상속세 고지세액의 일부인 3,266,028,360원 f2,324,018,590원(징수세액 중 상속세 고지세액 충당금액) ＋ 942,009,770원(증여세환급금 상당의 상속세 고지세액 충당금액) 또는 4,225,446,910원 (징수금액 및 증여세 환급충당금의 합계) － 959,418,550원(가산금 충당액) �에 충당한 셈이 되었다. 이에 따라 원고 등 상속인들에 대한 총 상속세 고지세액은 4차경정처분의 고지세액 3,805,114,031원을 기준으로 539,085,680원 )3,805,114,031원(4차경정처분에 의한 고지세액) － 3,266,028,351원(상속세 고지세액의 충당금액)이 미납세액으로 남게 되었다.

(c) Refund, etc. following a judgment to return unjust gains;

1) On February 25, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea on the ground that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares (57.5%) out of the instant additional dues calculated based on the initial payment period set in the disposition was unjust enrichment. After calculating the additional dues based on the original payment period set in the disposition, the Plaintiff collected additional dues of KRW 959,418,550, and the initial disposition became null and void due to the fourth correction disposition, which is the disposition of increase or decrease.

2) The Daegu District Court’s initial disposition of increase becomes null and void. Since the 4B measure of increase and decrease is an initial disposition of increase and decrease, the additional dues of this case calculated and paid based on the initial disposition constitute unjust enrichment which does not constitute 9,418,50 won and additional dues of this case 415,04,464 won equivalent to 43.26% of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares, and additional dues of 212,951,189 won for additional dues of this case (492,258,873 x 43.26% of the additional dues of this case) were determined to be returned to the Plaintiff, 207, Daegu District Court’s 208, 208, 207, 300, 207, 207, 305, 207, 427, 208, 207, 307, 207, 208, 207, 207, 27, .

D. On November 26, 2013, the MaW’s death and the Succession W was killed. After taking over, the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) EE and DuF inherited their property as a child of the MaW, and on March 25, 2014, taken over the status of the MaW as to the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 12, 17, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The total amount of inheritance tax notified to the inheritors, including the plaintiff, following the 4th correction disposition, was 3,805,114,031. The total amount of inheritance tax notified to the plaintiff, etc. was 942,09,770 won for the gift tax of this case and 959,418,50 won for the additional dues of this case and 273,233,217,820 won for the additional dues (9,418,50 won + 273,79,270 won for the additional dues of this case + 275,79,270 won for the total amount of inheritance tax notified to the plaintiff, etc. 3,805,114,031, the additional dues of this case were 250 won for the total amount of inheritance tax notified to the heir, 3,805 won for the additional dues of this case, 305 won for the additional dues of this case, 1974, 2975 won for the additional dues of this case.

B. Determination

1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, KRW 942,09,770 of the gift tax refund of this case was appropriated for the additional tax amount of KRW 1,484,134,926 (this is the increased tax amount of KRW 1,561,059,866) by the fourth correction disposition.

2) However, there is no evidence supporting that the additional dues amounting to KRW 1,233,217,820 (the additional dues amounting to KRW 959,418,550 + additional dues on the principal of the refund + KRW 273,79,270 on the additional dues on the principal of the refund + the additional dues amounting to KRW 3,805,114,031 on the total amount of the inheritance tax notified to the heir, including the plaintiff, by the fourth revised disposition.

Rather, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant Republic of Korea the additional charges of KRW 1,233,217,820 on the ground that the Defendant Republic received the additional charges from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and received all additional charges of KRW 415,04,464 on the Plaintiff’s inherited shares, and additional charges of KRW 212,951,189 on the refunded principal, KRW 627,95,653 on the ground that the Defendant Republic of Korea received the additional charges from the Plaintiff.

3) However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged and no other counter-proof evidence exists.

A) Since the total amount of the inheritance tax notified by the heir, including the Plaintiff, due to the fifth and the sixth and subsequent orders exceeds KRW 3,369,390,130 and KRW 3,319,380,866 of the total amount of the inheritance tax notified, KRW 3,266,028,028,360 o2,324,018,590 (amount to be appropriated for the amount of the inheritance tax notified in the amount of the inheritance tax collected) + KRW 942,09,770 (amount to be appropriated for the amount of the gift tax notified in the amount of the inheritance tax collected) £« KRW 942,09,70 (amount equivalent to the amount of the gift tax refunded), there was no ground for refund of

B) However, as the total amount of the inheritance tax notified by the heir, including the Plaintiff, through the seventh Correction Disposition, was KRW 3,151,541,263, 114,487,097,097,06,028,360 (amount collected and appropriated out of the total amount of the inheritance tax notified) - 3,151,541,263 (total amount of the inheritance tax notified by the seventh Correction Disposition) due to the shortage of eight, 114,487,097, the shortage of 114,487,097,000 won. Accordingly, on September 27, 2002, the director of the Nam Daegu District Tax Office recognized the appropriation of the total amount of the inheritance tax refunded to be null and void, 114,487,02,027,097,000 won and the total amount of the gift tax refunded to the Plaintiff 126,1467,2746,167

C) In addition, as the total amount of inheritance tax notified by the heir, including the plaintiff, by 8th correction, was 2,79,730,965 won, and 3,151,541,263 won (the notified tax amount in this part) of the heir, including the plaintiff, by 7th correction, was 351,810,298,151,541,263 won (the total amount of inheritance tax notified regarding 7th correction) - 2,79,730,79,730,965 won (the total amount of inheritance tax notified by 8th correction), 305 won and 979, 409, 2975 won and 979, 405 won and 975 won were ; 351,810,975 won and 97, 299, 405 won and 298 won were ever refunded.

3. Determination as to Defendant’s conjunctive claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s refund amounting to KRW 942,09,770 of the gift tax of this case was appropriated for the amount of the inheritance tax notified by the fourth revision that was increased by the Plaintiff’s joint payment obligation with the Plaintiff. Therefore, with respect to Defendant 6 and six other parties, the Plaintiff had a claim for unjust enrichment return or reimbursement due to subrogated payment equivalent to the amount appropriated to the amount of the inheritance tax notified by 6 parties, such as Defendant AA, among the instant refund amount.

2) However, the amount of total inheritance tax notified to the heir, including the Plaintiff, due to the reduction of the amount of KRW 3,805,114,031 to KRW 2,79,730,965 by the 5 through 8th correction, which was appropriated to the amount of inheritance tax notified to the heir, including the Plaintiff, for the amount of KRW 46,257,90,770, excluding KRW 466,257,90, which was returned by the Plaintiff, out of KRW 942,09,770, and KRW 466,257,90 ( KRW 942,09,770 - KRW 466,257,90) was appropriated to the amount of inheritance tax notified to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to return the amount of the gift tax refunded to the six persons, including the Defendant, KRW 75,70,709,70, KRW 7865,275,75,7865, etc.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff on the part of Defendant A et al. on the part of 6 Defendant A et al. on the part of 726,287,875 won against the part of Defendant A et al. on the part of 6 Defendant A et al.