The plaintiff's assertion that a retroactive effect under Article 1015 of the Civil Act is recognized in the "agreement on division of inherited property" or that it violates the principle of substantial taxation is without merit.

It cannot be deemed that the division agreement of this case, which takes the proceeds from the sale of the trust land of this case as the inherited property as the object of division, cannot be deemed as the "consultation on the division of inherited property" under Article 1013 of the Civil Act, and there is no unreasonable infringement of property rights such as the plaintiff and o. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the retroactive effect under Article 1015 of the Civil Act is recognized in the division agreement

Article 1013 of the Civil Act

2014Guhap412 Revocation of Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

o

Head of the Tax Office

June 25, 2014

July 18, 2014

Note. Do.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to the claim for refund of capital gains tax of KRW 61,516,079 to the Defendant, the Defendant on July 2, 2013.

The rejection disposition against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 2006, Hoo 6,754 square meters prior to 110-1o on December 28, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant land 1”).

on the 27th day of the same month, Doo's ownership by reason of the sale

The former registration was completed; however, the foregoing registration was completed on the trust land of 2,571.13 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust land”).

On the other hand, title trust was made to o.

B. On May 25, 2009, Hoo died on May 25, 2009, and as a property inheritor, Hoo, Hoo, and Goo

oo had been involved.

C. On October 30, 2012,o sold the instant land too in KRW 2,290,000,000;

After completing the registration of ownership transfer on November 30, 2012, the trust land of this case to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2012

payment of KRW 55,100,000 corresponding to the proceeds of sale, and he/she raises an objection to the Defendant on January 24, 2013.

The transfer income tax of KRW 565,226,640 in total shall be reported, subject to the comprehensive transfer of the land.

had been.

D. Since April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff held a title trust with o on the instant trust land in the name of o

However, he constitutes the reduction and exemption of the instant trust land by directly cultivating the instant trust land for more than 8 years;

The defendant 142,264,310 won by asserting that the capital gains tax paid excessively by o is refunded.

The application for refund of capital gains tax (hereinafter referred to as "application for refund of this case") was made.

1) ① On December 26, 2006, 110-1, 2,668 square meters of o 110-1, 110-2, 179 square meters of o, 110-3, 110-3, 1183 square meters of o 110-3, and the same Dong.

12-1 1,304 square meters prior to 112-1, and 112-3 1,420 square meters prior to 112-3 of the same Act were merged with the land in this case, and 2,569 square meters prior to 110-1, prior to 26 December 26, 206, and

The land was subdivided into 110-6 4,185 square meters prior to the same 110-6, and was re-merged on May 6, 2010, and thereafter, on June 20, 2014.

The land was divided into 6,719 square meters before 110-1 and 110-7, and 35 square meters before 110-7, and all the land before and after the division for convenience is "the land in this case".

4. Agreement on division of inherited property

Inheritance commenced on May 25, 2009 by Hoo on May 25, 2009, shall be jointly inherited.

The persons shall consult on the division of inherited property as follows:

1. Terms and conditions of consultation on division of inherited property;

The network is due to the transfer of the area of 6,754 square meters (the instant land) on November 30, 2012,o 110-1, oo 6,754 square meters (the instant land)

The amount equivalent to the ratio of the area of the transferred land under a title trust with o by o

Money received by oo, a spouse;

A) Total amount of the above received money is owned by o(O) by co-inheritors (1/1).

B) Co-inheritors o, oo, and o do not own them.

- - Future -

1)O 110-2 48.24 square meters

2)O 110-3 1,183 square meters prior to 10-3

3)O 112-1 1,304 square meters prior to 1,304 square meters

4)O 112-2 Conduits 35.89 square meters

2. He shall prepare this letter of agreement to certify the above consultation, and shall carry one copy with his name and seal affixed thereto; and

E. As a result of the tax investigation intoo on May 6, 2013 to May 24, 2013, oo’s trust of this case

It is confirmed that the land was title trust too, and thato,o, o on May 27, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as "Oo, etc.") and the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant trust land.

on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have filed a transfer of KRW 64,058,945, respectively, to the Plaintiff 107,48,222,o, etc.

The notice was given to impose the tax prior notice on the acquisition tax.

F. On June 4, 2013, the Plaintiff and Hoo et al. drafted a written agreement on the division of inherited property with the following content:

The division consultation of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the division consultation of this case").

G. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff’s sole lawsuit on the instant trust land following the instant divisional agreement

Since the Plaintiff maintained the trust land of this case for at least eight years, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was enacted.

A request for pre-assessment review was made on the ground that it falls under the reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69. The request was made on behalf of the claimant.

The defendant, on July 2, 2013, cannot be admitted to the plaintiff's assertion of sole ownership, but the plaintiff's trust of this case is not recognized.

Of the land, o 110-3 1,183 square meters, and 112-1 1,304 square meters prior to the same 112-1 shall be at least eight years.

In view of the fact that the direct cultivation was recognized, the decision of partial adoption was made.

H. According to the above decision, the Defendant: (a) on July 2, 2013, pursuant to the transfer income tax on the instant trust land, the Plaintiff

1,446,057 won, o, etc. shall be determined by 44,322,240 won, respectively, and the tax amount paid by the second class shall be paid.

3,491,316, respectively, to the Plaintiff, after deducting the above capital gains tax, 70,274,291 won,o, etc.

A decision was made to refund KRW 80,748,239 in the aggregate of the Won (hereinafter referred to as the "application for refund in this case").

(i) "Disposition of Refusal to Refund KRW 61,516,071", and (i) The Plaintiff appealed on August 6, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal on the appeal on August 6, 2013.

21. A decision to dismiss a request was made.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 3

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the sale price of the instant trust land is also deemed as the inherited property subject to division, the sale price shall be deemed as such.

According to Article 1015 of the Civil Act, the agreement on division of an inherited property under Article 1013 of the Civil Act is an agreement on division of inherited property

D. The trust land of this case is retroactively effective from the time of commencement of the inheritance. Therefore, from the time of commencement of the inheritance

The plaintiff's sole ownership and the disposition of this case conducted on a different premise is unlawful.

In addition, the plaintiff, who is the co-inheritors of the tea exchange, and the tea white, etc., are alone the trust land of this case.

For the purpose of solely succeeding to inheritance and acquiring all the proceeds of sale, the division of this case

The disposition of this case is limited to the formal wording of the Divided Agreement, and such consideration

Since the substance is removed from the substance, it is illegal in violation of the substance over form principle.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

The facts of recognition, the relevant laws and regulations, and the entry of the evidence No. 4 shall include the whole purport of the pleading.

In light of the following circumstances, the sale price of the trust land of this case, inherited property, is divided.

It cannot be viewed as the "consultation on Division of Inherited Property" under Article 1013 of the Civil Code, which is the subject of the division consultation; and

The disposition of this case is solely made by the plaintiff from the time of commencement of the inheritance of the trust land of this case due to the division consultation of this case

The reduction or exemption of the capital gains tax on o, etc. on the premise that o, etc. is not deemed to be owned.

It is merely an unused part and thus deemed that the property rights of the plaintiff and o were unfairly infringed.

As such, a retroactive effect under Article 1015 of the Civil Act is recognized in the instant divisional agreement.

The plaintiff's assertion that it violates the substance over form principle is without merit.

① The written agreement on subdivision of this case is not the trust land of this case, but the land of this case.

Of the transfer proceeds, the money corresponding to the trust land of this case that the plaintiff received from o

The term "money" is specified as "money".

② Prior to the consultation on subdivision of this case, the land of this case, including the trust land of this case, No. 3

Since it was sold to Hoo and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff and Hoo thereafter.

No division consultation shall be made by making the trust land itself a divided subject to division of inherited property.

It is reasonable to see that it is.

③ On October 28, 2009, when filing a return on the inheritance tax base, etc. with the Defendant

The trust land of this case was not included in the inherited property, and thereafter the trust land of this case was sold.

In the case of failure to hold any particular consultation, the part on the commencement date of the inheritance is received by the defendant's prior notice of taxation.

At least four years ago, the division consultation of this case was made.

(4) Article 31 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010)

subsection (3) of this section shall be deemed to have a share of inheritance of each inheritor by registration, etc. for inherited property after the commencement of inheritance.

A special result of the division of the inherited property through consultation by co-inheritors after the registration, etc. was made;

The value of property acquired by a fixed successor in excess of the original share of inheritance shall be inherited by the division.

provision that the portion of the property is reduced includes the property donated by the heir, and that provision

In the case of this case, there is no reason to limit the registration to the registration in the name of co-inheritors.

As to the land of this case, including trust land, the transfer registration of ownership is completed in oo

with respect to the trust property of this case, the share of inheritance shall be determined in accordance with the statutory inheritance of the trust property of this case

It is reasonable to see that it had been done.

⑤ In the case of the division of the jointly-owned property, the sale price shall be recognized in addition to the installment in kind.

claim that it is possible to divide the inherited property for the property, but the division of the "price" recognized in the division of the common property.

Section 1 of this title, on the premise of the division of the original part of the co-owners, the object of division

In itself, the term "price" is not the meaning of "price."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.