Suwon District Court-2017-Nu-9665 (Law No. 22, 2018)

Whether a disposition imposing capital gains tax on an inheritor for qualified acceptance is legitimate

Even if the plaintiff did not receive any payment from the successful bid price, the plaintiff has the economic effect of extinguishing the inheritance obligation due to inheritance, because the successful bid price was delivered to the creditors of the inheritee and the obligation was repaid to them, and thus the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Time of Transfer or Acquisition

2018Nu63916 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Maap○

○ Head of Tax Office and 2

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gudan9665 Decided August 22, 2018

March 27, 2019

May 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition disposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2013 which Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office rendered against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2017 shall be revoked. The imposition disposition of capital gains tax of 00 won for the Plaintiff on August 10, 2017 shall be revoked. The Plaintiff shall pay 1.6% per annum for the period from August 26, 2017 to the delivery date of the copy of the claim and the ground for alteration, respectively, for the period from August 26, 2017 to the delivery date of the copy of the claim and the ground for alteration, and 15% per annum for the period from the next day to the full payment date (the Plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit against Defendant ○○

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the supplement or addition of the judgment as follows 2, and it is stated in the reasons for the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part of "3. conclusion"). Therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ 3. Change of the Defendant’s “Defendant” into “Co-Defendant of the first instance trial”

○ 3 5 on the 5 side is amended to “the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s branch”;

○ 5. Amending “judgment” with “Judgment,” and “Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13630 Decided September 13, 2012”

○ 5 Up to one of the following modifications:

“Qualified acceptance or renunciation of inheritance” does not take effect by an inheritor’s declaration of intention, but by filing a report with the family court, and the adjudication takes effect upon being notified by the parties concerned. This is intended to protect the trust of third parties, such as co-inheritors or next-order inheritors, inheritance creditors, and the other party to the disposal of inherited property, by clarifying the existence of qualified acceptance or renunciation of inheritance, thereby uniformly treating legal relations arising from inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da20401, Jun. 25, 2004).

In full view of the evidence No. 4, evidence No. 8-1, and evidence No. 8-2, the plaintiff filed a waiver report with the Seoul Family Court on September 26, 2000, but revised the purport of the claim on January 29, 2002 with the qualified acceptance, and on May 3, 2002, it can be recognized that the plaintiff received a judgment to accept the qualified acceptance report (the Seoul Family Court Decision 2000Mo5736). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff renounced inheritance is without merit.

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts as follows. The instant capital gains tax and the obligation of local income tax (hereinafter “capital gains tax, etc.”) constitute expenses for inheritance, and the Plaintiff was obligated to pay capital gains tax, etc. within the limit of inherited property, since it was qualified as inheritance. However, since the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax, etc. with its own property, not inherited property, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea and ○○ City should return the capital gains tax, etc.

It constitutes expenses for inheritance stipulated in Article 998-2 of the Civil Act, among obligations owed in the course of disposing of inherited property for the repayment of inherited property, such as savings deposits and capital gains tax, and fall under the expenses for inheritance. Under the purport of the qualified acceptance system for the protection of inheritors, even if liability is limited within the scope of inherited property with respect to tax obligations equivalent to such inherited expenses, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax, etc., which is limited within the scope of the property that the Plaintiff acquired by inheritance, or exceeds the limit of the above property upon the Plaintiff’s inheritance, cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13630, Sept. 13, 2012). Furthermore, since an obligation, such as capital gains tax, etc., which exceeds inherited property, exists as a so-called natural obligation, and thus, it does not constitute a non-debt and a claim for return of unjust enrichment does not occur. The Plaintiff’s assertion on other premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of any justifiable reason. The judgment of the first instance (excluding the part against the co-defendant of the first instance court, which was withdrawn by this court) is justifiable in conclusion with the same conclusion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.