Examination Inheritance 2008-004 ( November 13, 2008)

The deposit withdrawn to the donor is presumed to be a donation in case the deposit is withdrawn to the account in the name of the taxpayer.

Where the withdrawn amount of a deposit is deposited into a taxpayer’s deposit account, barring special circumstances, it constitutes a donation, and special circumstances must be evidence with clear probative value sufficient to reverse the probative value of the deposit contract, etc. prepared through the real name verification procedure pursuant to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the decedent did not express his/her intent of donation solely for the above reasons

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 3 (Liability for Inheritance Tax Payment)

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding revocation of the amount exceeding 466,725,660 won among the disposition imposing KRW 484,051,160, which the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on April 3, 2008 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

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

피고가 2008. 4. 3. 원고 임☆☆에게 한 증여세 118,238,400원, 36,094,930원, 119,630,060원, 39,561,880원의 각 부과처분, 원고 신★★에게 한 증여세 42,183,000원, 54,008,000원의 각 부과처분, 원고들에게 한 상속세 484,051,160원의 부과처분을 모두 취소한다.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On August 17, 2006, Ma○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”) died, and accordingly, the decedent died.

의 처인 원고 신★★과 아들인 원고 임☆☆이 피상속인의 재산을 상속하였다.

B. On February 16, 2007, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Defendant a report on the tax base of inheritance tax and an order for re-issuance of inheritance tax to KRW 260,552,326, which is calculated with the taxable value of inheritance as KRW 4,139,225,107, and the tax base of inheritance as KRW 1,123,756,460.

다. 피고는 상속개시 전 처분재산 중 원고들이 용도불분명한 것으로 신고한 금 2,080,366,766원 중 원고 임☆☆ 명의의 계좌로 분산예치된 금 900,000,000원, 원고 신★★ 명의의 계좌로 분산예치된 금 700,000,000원 및 원고 임☆☆의 대출금 상환액으로 소비된 100,000,000원은 상속재산이 아닌 사전증여재산이라고 보아, 2008. 4. 3. 원고 임☆☆에게 증여세 118,238,400원, 36,094,930원, 119,630,060원, 39,561,880원을, 원고 신★★에게 증여세 42,183,000원, 54,008,000원을 각 부과하고, 위 사전증여재산은 실제 상속된 금액은 아니므로 원고 신★★의 실제 상속재산가액이 875,060,851원에 불과하여 배우자 상속공제한도액도 875,060,851원으로 감액되었다는 이유로 원고들에 대하여 재산정된 상속세 484,051,160원을 각 부과하는 이 사건 처분을 했다.

[Facts for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Evidence A1-2, Evidence A-4, 5, Evidence A-5, Evidence A-1 through 6, Evidence A-2-1 to 3, the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 466,725,660 among the disposition imposing KRW 484,051,160 on the Plaintiffs is lawful

According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-2 ex officio, the defendant imposed KRW 484,051,160 on April 3, 2008 on the plaintiffs, but corrected KRW 17,325,50 among them on February 23, 2009. As such, when the above disposition is corrected, the amount reduced from the original disposition becomes retroactively null and void. Thus, the defendant's claim for revocation of the above disposition is without a benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation exceeding KRW 466,725,660 among the disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 484,051,160 against the Plaintiffs on April 3, 2008 is unlawful.

3. Whether the remaining cases are dealt with by the law.

A. The plaintiff's principal

It was true that the sum of KRW 1,600,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) out of the compensation for expropriation paid to the land owned by the decedent before the decedent’s birth was distributed to the regular deposit account opened in the name of the Plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiffs were only so to obtain more interest income from the property administrator of the decedent whose consciousness was unknown, and the actual owner of the instant deposit is the decedent, not the donation of the instant deposit.

Above all, since the decedent lost consciousness around August 10, 2005, the decedent was in a state in which normal communication is impossible from the time of death until the time of death, and thus, the decedent’s intention of donation on the instant deposit cannot be presented.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 10, 2005, the decedent was deprived of food and clothing, and was under hospital treatment in a serious patient room due to urology, urology, high blood pressure, etc. On January 14, 2006, the decedent was not able to communicate with the decedent on January 14, 2006. At the time of the decedent’s hospitalization in the Seoul Amsan Hospital on January 14, 2006, the decedent was dead, and the time, place, and people had been unable to communicate, but it was impossible to communicate with the decedent. By January 17, 2006, the decedent respondeded to an answer via a single answer form on a horse, but thereafter, the decedent continued to communicate with the decedent.

(2) On January 10, 2006 and May 2, 2006, the Plaintiff signed a sales contract with the Korea Land Corporation on behalf of the decedent with respect to the land located in the Namyang-si located in the Namyang-si District Housing Development Project on behalf of the decedent, and accordingly, deposited KRW 2,685,950,000 in the aggregate of KRW 745,00,000 on May 23, 2006, as well as KRW 2,685,950,000 in the name of the decedent.

(3) The Plaintiffs withdrawn part of the land compensation paid to the decedent, and distributed out KRW 1,700,000,000 among them to a regular deposit account in the name of the Plaintiffs, or used them to repay the loan borrowed from the Plaintiff, Yong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The details are as follows.

(4) 피상속인은 2006. 8. 17. 사망했고, 원고들은 2006. 9.경 원고 임☆☆이 상속재산 중 부동산을, 원고 신★★이 나머지 재산을 모두 상속하는 내용으로 상속재산분할협의를 했는데, 원고 신★★에게 분할된 상속 재산에는 상속개시 전 처분재산으로

2,080,366,766 won was included.

(5) With respect to the return of the tax base of inheritance tax and the dispatch of employment submitted to the defendant on February 16, 2007 by the plaintiffs

의하면 원고들이 상속받은 총 재산가액은 4,290,579,587원으로 산정되었는데, 피상속인에게 지급된 토지보상금 중 2,080,366,766원이 상속개시 전 처분재산 중 용도불분명액의 항목으로 분류되어 위 상속재산가액에 합산되었으며, 이는 전액 원고 신★★에게 협의분할에 의해 상속된 것으로 처리되어 원고 선연순의 상속재산가액은 합계 2,455,427,617원으로, 원고 임☆☆의 상속재산가액은 합계 1,835,151,970원으로 각 신고되었다.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 4, 5, 7 evidence, Gap 8-1, 3, and Eul 3; the purport of the whole pleadings]

D. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether a de facto owner of the instant case’s deposit is the decedent

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, the need to prove such deposit is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001; 99Du8312, Jul. 24, 2001).

In addition, in cases where a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact of the explanation thereof is clearly indicated in the deposit contract statement, it would normally be reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder, the actor, and the intent of a financial institution acting for him/her, indicated in the deposit account statement as the party to the deposit contract is to be the party to the deposit contract, and it would be reasonable to clarify the legal relationship as to the party to the deposit contract. Therefore, even if the deposit title holder takes the real name verification procedure according to the intent of the deposit title holder and prepares the deposit account statement with the deposit title holder as the deposit account holder, interpreting the non-deposit title holder as the party to the deposit contract should be limited to extremely exceptional cases where the financial institution and the contributor, etc. agree with the clear intent of excluding the right to claim the deposit of the deposit title holder by denying the deposit claim of the deposit account of the deposit title holder and concluding the deposit contract with the contributor, etc. to vest the right to claim the deposit return in accordance with the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

As to the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiffs withdrawn KRW 2,366,00,000 in total from the bank account in the name of the decedent five times from February 10, 2006 and distributed KRW 1,60,00,000 among them to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiffs is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a clear agreement between the financial institution and the financial institution to vest in the right to claim the return of the deposit to the decedent with respect to the instant deposit. Therefore, the owner of the instant deposit is the Plaintiffs (in this respect, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the owner of the instant deposit is the decedent is not acceptable) and there is no circumstance to deem that the transfer of the said amount was conducted for any purpose other than donation. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant deposit is a prior donation property against the Plaintiffs.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the intention of donation could not be established because the decedent was in an unidentified state

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a donor is withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account, etc. in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001; 99Du8312, Jul. 24, 2001). The burden of proving that there is no intention of donation by the decedent in this case is against the Plaintiffs.

In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the decedent had no intention of donation of the deposit of this case to the decedent in the situation where the decedent could express his/her intent to make a donation with respect to the land to be paid by the decedent in the above-mentioned situation at the time of the transfer of the deposit of this case by the fact that the decedent was not in a situation where the decedent could express his/her intention to make a donation with respect to the land to be paid by the decedent in the above-mentioned situation at the time of the transfer of the deposit of this case. Accordingly, it is not sufficient to recognize that the decedent had no intention of donation of the deposit of this case to the decedent.

4. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 466,725,660 among the disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 484,051,160 against the Plaintiffs on April 3, 2008 is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. Each remaining claim of the Plaintiffs is without merit, and it is dismissed.