Whether it is an inherited property, because the property actually transferred before the predecessor died

Even if the registration of the real estate actually disposed of by the sales contract, etc. before the commencement of the inheritance remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it cannot be included in the inherited property. However, according to the evidence, it cannot be viewed that the inheritee disposed of the land

Article 7 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial, is modified as follows. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in total, both the first and second instances.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On October 1, 2004, the part exceeding KRW 17,67,542 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant on Plaintiff 1 ○○○○○ on KRW 89,324,594, and the part exceeding KRW 9,363,581 of the inheritance tax imposed on Plaintiff 2 ○○○○○, which was revoked (the Plaintiff extended the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole of the marriage in the entries in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, 6, 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence 17.

A. On July 30, 2002, ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the inheritee”) died on and after the death of July 30, 2002, Plaintiff 1○○○, his spouse, Plaintiff 2○○○○○, and Nonparty 2’s children, were jointly inherited the property of the inheritee. On November 11, 2002, between the Plaintiffs and ○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ 61-18 large 403.9 cubic meters, 321/327 shares (hereinafter “instant site”) in the same Ri 61-17 large 363.1 cubic meters, ○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ 61-14 and 61-17 ground buildings, and the building site and above ground, the ratio of inherited property divided was established between the Plaintiffs and ○○ ○○ ○○ 27%, respectively (hereinafter “○○ 27”).

B. On January 29, 2003, the Plaintiffs voluntarily reported to the Defendant the inheritance tax of KRW 138.401.388, including the instant land, and paid KRW 31,140,312 to the Defendant on January 29, 2003.

C. On October 1, 2004, the Defendant decided and notified the inheritance tax amount to KRW 325,881,960 on October 1, 2004. However, upon receiving an objection from the Plaintiff 1○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to reduce the amount of tax to KRW 116,691,897 by additionally deducting the spouse’s deduction against the Plaintiff 1○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 89,324,594, and to impose the tax amount on the Plaintiff 1○○○○○○○ KRW

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of scope of inherited property and calculation of value

On November 15, 1986, the inheritee sold 5,00,000 won of the instant site to ○○○○, who is its birth, and received 6,00,000,000 won of the down payment from ○○○ on the day of the contract, and at the same time delivered the said site to ○○○○ on December 15, 1986, the instant site only remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of the death of the inheritee, and cannot be deemed to have been actually disposed of to ○○○○. As such, the Defendant deemed the instant site as inherited property and included KRW 1,185,505,100 as of the officially assessed individual land price in the inherited property value. Since it is unlawful as it includes the instant site that is not included in inherited property, the part exceeding the reasonable tax amount under the following should be revoked.

(2) The due amount of tax

From the inheritance value calculated by the Defendant, 1,234,02,331 won calculated by deducting KRW 1,185,50,100 from the assessed value of the above site, 50,000,000 won for basic deductions under Article 18 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and other personal deductions under Article 20, and 50,000,000 won for personal deductions under Article 19 of the same Act, the spouse deduction under Article 19 of the same Act, 528,86,713 won, and 20,000 won for financial property deduction under Article 22 of the same Act, multiplied by 20,185,15,618 won, a reasonable calculated tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiffs is 27,031,123 won. If the instant site is excluded from the inherited property, the inherited property ratio is 65.36%, 200,000 won for the Plaintiff 1,003636,236361.36

B. Determination

(1) Even if the registration of the real estate actually disposed of under a sales contract, etc. before the commencement of the inheritance remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, such registration may not be included in the inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7838, Jun. 26, 1991). As to whether it can be seen as a real disposal of the land of this case to a different species before the commencement

(3) On December 6, 1989, 100 won was 7.2, 00 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 3.0 won was 10,000 won was 20 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20 won was 10,000 won was 200 won was 3.

(3) Therefore, since the instant site is deemed to be included in inherited property, the instant disposition based on this premise is legitimate, and the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is therefore groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance, including the plaintiffs' claim expanded in the trial.