Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap32648 ( October 16, 2011)

If the insurance period has elapsed, the maturity shall be deemed the donation date.

Since insurance money is donated property, if an insurance accident occurs during the insurance period, the date of occurrence of the insurance accident shall be deemed the donation date, but if the insurance period has elapsed without occurrence of the insurance accident, the maturity shall be

2011Nu12421 Revocation of revocation of a request for rectification of inheritance tax

XX

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap32648 Decided March 16, 2011

August 31, 2011

September 28, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 238,422,530 on August 10, 2009 against the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the appointed parties ("decision of rejection of an application for rectification of inheritance tax base" stated in the purport of the claim is deemed to have erred in the disposition of imposition of KRW 238,42,530 on inheritance tax).

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is "172,465,260 won, 172,45,260 won, 172,45,260 won, which shall be the 7th nine of the judgment of the court of first instance," and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for adding the grounds for judgment as to the argument that the plaintiff (appointed party) made in the next paragraph."

The plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserts that Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act cannot be applied since each of the insurance premiums of this case was paid by the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed from the deceased by donation of each insurance premium.

Article 34 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act stipulates that in the event of an insured incident between the beneficiary and the payer of the premium, the amount of the insurance money shall be deemed the value of the donated property of the beneficiary in the event of the occurrence of the insurance accident, there are cases where gift tax cannot be imposed due to the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition of gift tax if the time of payment of the premium is considered as the time of donation of the insurance money, and there is a critical point in the procedure of imposing gift tax every time when the insurance premium is paid.

According to Article 53 (1) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998), each of the insurance premiums of this case was paid to KRW 223,650,00 (the designated party) and KRW 117,150,000 (the designated party + KRW 117,00,000) as of July 8, 1998, each of the insurance premiums of this case was paid to KRW 223,650,00,000, + KRW 117,150,000 of the designated party). Thus, there is no fact that there was no such fact in filing a report on the tax base of gift tax pursuant to Article 68 of the same Act (the fact that there is no dispute), the plaintiff (appointed party) and the lateB prepared a confirmation confirming that each of the insurance premium of this case was paid by the deceased (Evidence No. 5-1, 222, and the designated party (the designated party) and each of this case were reported 171.

The argument of the plaintiff (appointed party) is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) are dismissed.