2015west 4619 ( December 31, 2015)

The real estate registered in the name of the decedent after the consultation on division of inherited property shall be disposed of, and some of the proceeds thereof shall not be donated in advance to other inheritors.

It is not a prior donation made by the decedent to the plaintiffs, but a prior donation was made by the plaintiffs and the decedent after disposing of the real estate jointly inherited by the deceased, and the price was distributed in advance according to their inheritance shares prior to their death.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Inheritance presumption, etc. of disposed property before the commencement date of inheritance

2016Guhap57526 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing inheritance tax, etc.

Republic of Korea AAAA7

○○ Head of tax office 5

December 2, 2016

December 23, 2016

1. The disposition imposing inheritance tax and gift tax on the Plaintiffs as shown in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The plaintiffs are born children between Hana and Lee bb (the plaintiffs Y0 and Mabb shall be the grandchildren of Hana and Lee bb). When Hana died on January 5, 1986, Lee Dong-bb and the plaintiffs succeeded to the property of 000-Gu, Seoul 00 00 Ga1 and 00 Ga162.3 square meters and 162.3 square meters of the land of 00-0 Ga and 5.3 square meters of the same site of 000-0 Ga (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the real property of this case"), but did not complete inheritance registration.

The instant real estate is owned solely on April 25, 2013 by Leeb, 2013, with respect to the inherited property of April 15, 2013.

The registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of bbb on the grounds of inheritance by division according to the written agreement of division.

The instant real estate was sold on May 7, 2013, and the sales price of KRW 6,40,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the dispute amount”) was distributed to the Plaintiffs according to the inheritance shares (the money amounting to KRW 1,60,00,000 was reverted to bb according to the inheritance shares of b) and b died on July 24, 2013.

Defendants, around July 2015, before the commencement of the inheritance from Ebb, the amount of issues distributed to the Plaintiffs

Considering that the donation was made, the Plaintiffs determined and notified the gift tax and inheritance tax (total sum of the value of inherited property of the advance donation) (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case" in addition to the disposition of gift tax and inheritance tax) as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① A building of this case among the real estate of this case has obtained approval for use on or around September 30, 1960; the deceased Hana resided in the house from October 20, 1968 to the time of death; Leeb also resided in the house from January 18, 1968 to January 12, 201 (the resident registration of this case was not changed even after Hana was admitted to a long-term care institution); ② The fact that the plaintiffs, who was the head of Han-a as of January 5, 1986, had been exempt from funeral expenses at the expense of 40b.42,1942, 190, 260, 200, 300, 201, 300, 201, 300, 201, 201.

On the other hand, the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 2 are added to the purport of the entire pleadings, 1.

The Plaintiffs, around April 15, 2013, agreed on the division of inherited property to the effect that the instant real estate shall be owned solely by bb, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of bbb due to inheritance by agreement division on April 25, 2013. ② The Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with a buyer on May 7, 2013, and ③ the fact that the down payment of KRW 80 million out of the total sale price of the instant real estate was received on May 7, 2013, and the remainder of KRW 720,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, was paid on June 27, 2013 (the date the remaining payment was received).

In addition to the above facts, it is insufficient to view that bB donated the key amount of the sale price of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs according to the inheritance shares, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs received the key amount prior to the death of bB pursuant to the inheritance shares. Therefore, the instant disposition made on the premise that the Plaintiffs received the instant key amount from bB was unlawful.

bb From January 12, 2011, 201, she was under medical treatment at the hospital and was living in writing for 2013.

In addition, the plaintiffs were hospitalized in the patient room due to dementia. The plaintiffs need to prepare medical expenses and nursing expenses of thisb, and there was also resolution of inheritance following the death in light of the health condition of thisb. At that time, it would have been easy for the plaintiffs to sell the real estate of this case in the name of thisb, rather than the registration under the name of all the inheritors including the plaintiffs, although the plaintiffs were registered for transfer of ownership in the name of thisb. (No. 7-2 of this case, this advice was received from a certified judicial scrivener who was represented for the transfer of ownership in the name of thisbb.). In addition, this was not residing in the real estate of this case, and there was no need to possess the real estate of this case in light of the health condition. The plaintiffs distributed the key amount of the sale price after the transfer of ownership and sale of the real estate of this case to thisb in the future is merely the intention to realize the inheritance shares of this case, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs had the right to dispose of the real estate of this case to this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.