An amount transferred by an ancestor from a deposit account to an account in the name of another person is clearly used by the loan.

The disposition of this case, which included the amount of the loan in the taxable value of inherited property, is illegal because the purpose of the loan is objectively obvious, and thus is presumed to have inherited it.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap3048 Partial Revocation of Disposition of Inheritance Tax

AAA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

May 1, 2015

May 29, 2015

1. The part of KRW 212,923,377 among the disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 441,511,815 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on October 2, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. One fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. AB (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”) died on January 3, 2012 and died on January 3, 2012, and there was SAA, the Plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”), the Appointed, AD, and AE, at the time of the death.

B. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an inheritance tax return with the taxable value of inherited property KRW 3,943,871,493, the tax base of KRW 2,638,030,181, and the tax amount to be paid by the vehicle was KRW 805,690,865.

C. From January 7, 2013 to May 7, 2013, 2013, the ○○ National Tax Service conducted an inheritance tax investigation, and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation. Accordingly, on October 2, 2013, the Defendant determined the taxable value of inherited property as KRW 4,950,157,728, the tax base as KRW 3,644,316,416, the total determined amount as KRW 1,343,486,135, and imposed KRW 537,795,270 on the Plaintiff.

D. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Audit and Inspection. On September 18, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a request for review against the Board of Audit and Inspection to the Board of Audit and Inspection, and on September 18, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection determined that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed by re-auditing the specific amount of money of KRW 537,79 square meters of inheritance tax, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○, and 600 square meters of forests and fields, which is owned by the inheritee or secured by the right to collateral security, and the amount of inheritance obligations that need to be

E. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant deducted KRW 35,803,237 from the taxable value of inherited property, which is necessary to deduct the amount of inherited property as the amount of debts owed by the inheritee pursuant to the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and deducted the amount of inheritance tax notified from KRW 21,565,541.

F. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant deducted KRW 153,50,000 from inherited property the amount of bad debt claim of the inheritee for construction expenses, and calculated by adding the amount of KRW 22,117,832 to the deductible amount of inheritance deduction claim for the corrected inherited property of the spouse, and additionally deducting the amount of inheritance tax notice amount of KRW 74,717,914. Ultimately, inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff as of November 28, 2014 and January 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of inheritance tax”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The so-called “amount actually inherited by a spouse of a resident” under Article 19(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) constitutes “amount actually inherited by a spouse due to the death of a resident,” and thus, the instant disposition of taxation is unlawful, even though it should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, unless it is deducted from the taxable value of inherited property.

B. 35,00,000 won that was withdrawn by the decedent on February 11, 2011 is leased to HaA, and its use is not objectively unclear. Therefore, it should be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property.

C. The same ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○-dong 239 square meters and 600 square meters of ○○-dong 00 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant road and forest”) should be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property as a road actually used by many unspecified persons, having no property value.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination

A. Determination on the first argument

1) In the case of inheritance tax, the duty to pay taxes arises due to an incidental circumstance that is the death of an inheritee. As such, not only is the heir, priority, inheritance tax, etc. of an inherited property can not be arbitrarily selected by an ancestor, but also the value of the inherited property can be determined by the Act. On the other hand, in the case of gift tax, the donor may freely choose whether or not the donated property is donated, the donor may choose the value of the donated property, and the donor may freely choose the donated property because the donee did not specify it, and at each time, the inheritance tax and gift tax have special differences between the cause or time thereof, and the beneficiary (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ba13, Jul. 31, 2008). In particular, it is necessary to ex ante add donated property to the taxable value of the inherited property, but deducts the amount of gift tax from the amount of gift tax in advance from the inheritance tax amount of gift tax, which is not subject to the principle of no taxation without the law of no taxation without the law.

2) On the other hand, Article 53 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the taxable value of inherited property shall be the amount calculated by adding the value of the donated property to the heir within 10 years before the date of commencing the inheritance, after deducting the debts, etc. under Article 14 from the value of inherited property, while Article 53 of the same Act provides that the donated property from the spouse shall be deducted from the taxable value of donated property up to 600 million won if the donated property is received from the spouse. However, there is no exception that the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall deduct the donated property from the taxable value of inherited property from the taxable value of donated property, and as seen earlier, there is no intrinsic difference between the cause or time of the deduction of the donated property from the spouse, and there is no conclusion that the inheritance tax and gift tax shall be exempt from inheritance tax pursuant to Article 53 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which differs in the legislative intent. Thus, the inclusion of donated

In particular, the spouse deduction system under the gift tax system is a system recognized by taking into account the reality that a spouse operates a community life and exchanges support money, etc. with each other, and his/her contribution to the formation of a common property of both spouses. Pursuant to Article 53(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, a spouse may receive a donation of considerable property without bearing a gift tax by receiving a prior donation within ten years during marriage. Although a spouse receives a donation within ten years prior to the commencement of inheritance due to a failure to obtain a spouse donation deduction under Article 19 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if a spouse bears an inheritance tax by receiving a donation deduction within the scope of the amount recognized as a spouse donation deduction under Article 19 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, this is due to the legislative intent of Article 19 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, as the spouse donation deduction is recognized within the limit of 600 million won, and thus, the spouse's inheritance deduction is recognized at least KRW 500 million is added to the taxable value of the gift tax.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the second argument

Article 15(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the amount withdrawn from the property of an inheritee is calculated by the type of property within one year before the date inheritance commences, and is calculated by the type of property within two years before the date inheritance commences, and the use is calculated by the type of property, and is at least KRW 500 million within two years before the date inheritance commences, if the purpose of use is objectively unclear,

Under the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Defendant included an amount of KRW 597,572,710, out of the amount withdrawn from the property of the inheritee within two years prior to the date on which the inheritance commences, in the taxable value of inherited property. The amount includes KRW 35,00,000 (hereinafter “the withdrawn amount”) that the decedent transferred from the deposit account to the HA’s account on February 11, 201. The Plaintiff asserted that the withdrawn amount in this case is a loan to HA, and HA also recognized the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 35,00,000 from the inheritee on February 111, 201 (Evidence No. 5), and the Defendant did not dispute the amount of KRW 35,00,00,000, in the taxable value of inherited property, on the ground that the evidence supporting that HA performed its obligation was not verified.

Ultimately, since the amount of the withdrawal of this case is a loan to HA and its use is objectively obvious, it is presumed that it was inherited, and thus, the disposition of this case, which was included in the taxable value of inherited property, is unlawful.

C. Judgment on the third argument

1) Facts of recognition

A) At the time of filing an inheritance tax, the Plaintiff evaluated the instant road and forest as the standard market value, and reported KRW 49,473,00 as the standard market value of the instant road, and KRW 82,640,000, total sum of the standard market value of the instant forest and forest as the standard market value, including the value of inherited property.

B) At the time of the decedent’s death, the owner of the instant road or forest was AA. On April 3, 2003, the decedent completed the registration of the ownership transfer claim and the maximum debt amount of 140,000,000 won, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, a debtor yellowA, with the promise to sell and purchase on April 3, 200.

C) As to the instant road and forest land, the publicly announced individual land price is annually announced, and the officially announced land price in the year 2012 of the instant road is KRW 221,00, and the officially announced land price in the year 2012 of the instant forest is KRW 59,400. The forest land in this case is designated as a natural green area, Class I general residential area, small-ro 3 (Promotion by National Maps), and sports park.

D) ○○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong 187 square meters and ○○-dong 148 square meters, respectively, were appraised in the auction procedure as KRW 47,872,00, KRW 37,888,000, respectively, and sold KRW 21,110,000 on October 13, 2010, and KRW 16,000,000 on October 19, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 60 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal")," and Article 60 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where it is difficult to calculate the market price in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), it shall be based on the valuation method prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 in consideration of the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the property in question, in case of land where it is difficult to calculate the market price." In case of land, Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "Where it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be assessed by the publicly assessed individual land price under the Act on the Public Announcement of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate according to the supplementary valuation method." Although the tax authority is responsible for the assertion and proof of "where it is difficult to calculate the market price."

General Rule 61-504 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is a guideline for performing duties inside a national tax administrative agency, provides that roads, rivers, banks, ditches, etc., which are actually used by many unspecified persons for purposes other than roads as of the base date of appraisal, shall be included in the inherited property, but where it is deemed that there is no compensation value, such as there is no compensation value, such appraised value shall be zero (0). Notwithstanding the land category in the public record, if inherited property is actually provided for use as a road at the time of commencement of the commencement of the commencement of the commencement of the inheritance, the appraised value shall not be deemed as real property value, except in exceptional cases where the market value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance is confirmed by compensation value, etc., and thus, it may be recognized reasonable to impose inheritance tax on such inherited property. Thus, the provisions of the above general rule can be considered as the basis of computing the

(2) In the instant case:

According to these legal principles, in the case of a road commonly used by many unspecified persons, such as the instant road and forest land, the value of the property on which inheritance tax is levied shall be calculated as the market value as of the date the inheritance commences, and only if the road and forest land in this case are of property value, such as confirmation of the market value as at the time the inheritance commences by the compensation price, etc.

However, in light of the fact that part of the road and forest land of this case are used as a road but can be used exclusively, and that ○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong 187 square meters and 148 square meters of road of this case (in particular, ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong 187 square meters are adjacent to the road of this case) are appraised and sold at 47,872,000 won and 37,88,000 won in the auction procedure, it constitutes exceptional cases where it is deemed that the road of this case and forest of this case have property value.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part that included 80/100 of the amount in the disposition of this case, which was presumed to be inherited property by the decedent on February 11, 2011, is unlawful, by presumed the amount to be KRW 35,00,000,000, which was withdrawn by the decedent.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax can not be calculated on the basis of the principle that only the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax should be revoked by calculating the legitimate amount of tax, or because objective data necessary to calculate the legitimate amount of tax are not submitted. In the event that a reduction or correction is made, the subject of the revocation is reduced, and thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation is revoked in its entirety.

5. Conclusion

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