Whether it is a borrowed account

In light of the overall circumstances, such as the details of the transactions of deposits and withdrawals in the instant deposit account and the fact that the Plaintiff is unaware of the details of the deposits and withdrawal, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion cannot be accepted.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The part exceeding 435,128,690 won among the joint and several tax liabilities of KRW 927,893,153, each of which the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on November 15, 2004 is revoked.

1. Details of taxation; and

A. The Plaintiffs reported and paid KRW 56,570,515 to the Defendant on April 30, 2003 as the heir, when ○○○○○ died on November 1, 2002.

B. The Seoul regional tax office conducted a high-amount inheritance tax investigation from March 28, 2004 to August 28, 2004, and notified the Defendant that the inheritance tax should be included in the taxable value of inherited property, by deeming that the Plaintiffs’ amount of KRW 76,945,137, insurance money, KRW 337,75,151, and the amount of deposit withdrawal, the purpose of which is unclear [Attachment 1] 809,643,691, prior donated property 1,53,589,28, and was omitted in filing a report.

[Report] The amount of money withdrawn within two years, whose purpose is unclear

Deposit Shares

Withdrawal Amount

Amount of confirmation of place of use

Unspecified Use Amount

643,831,732 won

488,334,892 won

155,496,840 won

sexual intercourse ○

851,930,566 won

497,783,715 won

354,146,851 won

Total

1,495,762,298 won

986,118,607 won

509,643,691 won

C. Accordingly, on November 15, 2004, the Defendant deducted the total amount of the inheritance tax calculated, including the taxable value of the inherited property omitted to the Plaintiffs, from KRW 1,484,463,668, which was imposed and collected KRW 556,570,515, and imposed an assessment of KRW 927,893,153 of inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant taxation disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff’s wife, as the Plaintiff’s wife, the Japanese branch free savings account (Account No. 351-20-05465, hereinafter the instant savings account) as the borrowed-name account in which the inheritee’s benefits, etc. are deposited; and (b) imposed the instant tax disposition including KRW 4,934,498 in the balance of the said account at the time of inheritance commencement, including in the taxable value of inherited property; (c) however, the instant savings account was opened by the Plaintiff Sung-○○, which received money for living expenses from the inheritee; and (d) thus, it does not constitute the Defendant’s borrowed-name account.

(2) The Defendant imposed the instant tax disposition on the Defendant’s inherited property of KRW 336,259,911, total amount of the insurance money received by the Plaintiff Sung○○, but the said insurance money was paid with the remainder after saving the living expenses received from the inheritee by entering into an insurance contract and saving the living expenses received from the inheritee, and thus, it was not inherited property at maturity or early termination.

(3) The Defendant imposed the instant tax disposition, including the taxable value of inherited property, of KRW 509,643,691, which is unclear among the amounts withdrawn for two years from all the deposited accounts of the inheritee including the instant deposit account. However, since the instant deposit account is not a borrowed account of the inheritee, the amount withdrawn from the account should be excluded from the disposed property of the inheritee before the commencement of inheritance. Of the amount withdrawn before the commencement of inheritance from the deposit account under the name of the inheritee, the amount of KRW 291,220,131, out of the amount withdrawn from the deposit account under the name of the inheritee, shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property. Thus, the amount, the use of which is unclear, shall not exceed KRW 352,61,601, as it does not exceed KRW 352,500,000,000 under Article 15(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 1, 1990, the Plaintiff Sung-○ opened the instant deposit account as the occupational master book, and was re-issued by the passbook on August 8, 1995, and thereafter issued the passbook on January 7, 1997, starting with frequent entry and departure transactions, and thereafter, it was re-issued by the passbook on January 7, 1997. The more frequent transactions have been made thereafter, and it was re-issued on March 4, 2002.

(2) Major deposit and withdrawal transactions in the instant deposit account consist of: (a) the decedent’s payment and withdrawal of money equivalent to the premium, as follows.

(A) From September 30, 1995, the Defendant’s salary began to have been deposited into the instant deposit account. Prior to the transaction, the account transfer and the payment of urban gas and integrated public charges amounting to KRW 00,000,000, and the balance was almost KRW 00,000.

(B) However, the monthly salary of the inheritee exceeding KRW 5,00,000 was withdrawn from KRW 2,000 per month to KRW 6,000,000, while the monthly salary of the inheritee exceeded KRW 5,000,00 was commenced to be deposited in the instant deposit account, and its use is not known.

(C) Meanwhile, from January 200 to April 11, 200, the monthly premium for ○○ Life Insurance (1,958,376 won + 1,00,000 + 400,000 + 757,420 + 382,536 + 418,420 won + 420 won) was deposited in the name of the decedent, Plaintiff Sung-gu began on January 11, 200 and continued to exist on April 10, 201. The deposit in the name of the decedent and Plaintiff Ho△△△△△ was made in the name of the decedent, and the deposit in the name of the decedent and Plaintiff Ho△△△△△ was made in the name of the decedent after May 10, 200, and continued to continue to exist after the death of the decedent.

(D) The amount deposited in the name of the Plaintiff △△, except for the amount deposited in relation to the above insurance premium, totaling KRW 125,950,000,000, more than seven times.

(E) The premium of the insurance money received by the Plaintiff Sung-○ was paid with the money in the instant deposit account, and the monthly payment was made by account transfer. Other savings insurance was either withdrawn from and paid out from the instant deposit account or received after the termination of the previous savings insurance.

(F) The Plaintiff ○○ does not know well the details of the entry and departure of the instant deposit account.

(3) The details of the preparation of the certificate (No. 2)

(A) The Plaintiffs’ inheritance tax report received the Kim Jong-young’s help who was in charge of accounting affairs in ○○○, a corporation with the decedent’s management.

(B) On September 1, 2004, a public official in charge of inheritance tax investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office visited the ○○○ church along with his authority ○○○ and Kim○○○○ on a deposit basis to verify the details and evidence of the decedent’s donations, and then, from the Plaintiff Sung○○○, a written confirmation that the instant deposit account was the name of the decedent and the total amount of KRW 337,755,151, and the amount of insurance money received by the Plaintiff Sung○○○ was actually an inherited property of the decedent (Evidence 2, hereinafter the instant written confirmation”).

(C) At the time, the Plaintiff ○○ was approaching the same day as the next day, and the ○○○ was also the relation that was the new one of the previous students, and was about about about 20 minutes of the exchange. In the same place, the Plaintiff ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and the Plaintiff ○○○, who was in contact, participated in the exchange of approximately 20 minutes.

(D) After an exchange wall, ○○○ received the instant confirmation form, and demanded the signature of the Plaintiff Sung○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to do so on the same page, the competent ○○○○○○ certified public accountant first confirmed the contents of the instant confirmation form. After that, Kim○○, the Plaintiff’s U.S., U.S., and sexual ○○○, in sequence, signed the instant confirmation form.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-1 to 11, Evidence No. 7-1 to 9, Evidence No. 8-1 to 7, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments by the witness Kim ○, respectively.

D. Determination

In full view of the transaction details of the instant deposit account and the content of the instant confirmation document, the instant deposit account was used as a borrowed account of the decedent at least from the time the decedent’s benefits, etc. were deposited. As such, the remainder of KRW 4,934,498 of the commencement date of inheritance of the instant deposit account as well as KRW 337,755,151, which was paid with the money in the instant deposit account, as the savings insurance money that was paid with the premium from the money in the instant deposit account, shall be deemed as the inheritee’s inherited property.

On the other hand, in determining whether the disposal property prior to the date of commencing the inheritance falls under the presumed inherited property because its use is unclear, the amount withdrawn from the deposit account of this case shall be included. As long as the amount, including the deposit account of this case, exceeds KRW 509,643,691,50,500,000,000,000 won, which is unclear, exceeds KRW 500,000,000,000,000 won, is included in the taxable value of inherited property.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the bank account of this case is the plaintiff Sung-○, and that the plaintiff Sung-○'s expression of intent under the written confirmation of this case belongs to the statement that ○○ or ○○ would allow payment of inheritance tax less than the inheritance tax, or that it is cancelled because it is by mistake, but there is no evidence to believe that part of the testimony by the witness Kim○, which corresponds to this, is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. In addition, in light of the overall situation, it cannot be deemed that it is the bank account of the plaintiff Sung-○, in light of the overall situation, such as the details of the transaction of the deposit and withdrawal of the deposit account of this case and the fact that the plaintiff Sung-○ is aware of the details of the deposit and withdrawal. Thus, the above plaintiffs'

Therefore, the taxation of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

* Note *

1) Majorly, KRW 3,400,00 in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 757,420 in the name of the Plaintiff’s △△△△△△, and KRW 800,956 in the name of the decedent, and was deposited in the name of a harsh person. On June 8, 2000, KRW 3,400,000 and KRW 800,956 in the name of the Plaintiff Sung○○○ was deposited. The branch offices of the transaction bank are the same as KRW 29-5810 (Evidence 8-5) in the name of the Plaintiff Sung○○.