Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Kang Hun-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Suwon Tax Office

May 23, 2012

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap5408 Decided December 8, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant are dismissed.

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

3. The phrase “Plaintiff 1” in Article 1 of the Disposition of the first instance court shall be corrected to “the Plaintiff.”

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 471,008,481 (including additional tax of KRW 87,482,317) against the Plaintiffs on December 1, 2010 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the defendant's assertion is added in the following paragraphs.

○ The second judgment of the first instance court is followed from the 6th below to the 2th below.

【The value of inherited property was assessed against the Plaintiff as KRW 471,08,481 (including additional tax of KRW 87,482,317) calculated by adding the value of inherited property to KRW 2,368,601,325 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The amount of tax payable by each inheritor is KRW 99,549,357, Plaintiff 1, and 3, respectively.

2. The defendant's assertion and its determination

In light of the fact that the inheritee died after about 30 years of age after the Vietnam War, the Defendant asserts that the inheritee does not constitute a war dead as provided in Article 11(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, but its assertion is difficult to accept. The reasons are as follows.

(1) Article 11(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that no inheritance tax shall be levied in cases where inheritance commences due to “the death caused by death in war or other similar action, or by an injury or disease sustained in the course of the performance of official duties in war or other equivalent thereto,” and the decedent died due to disease suffered in Vietnam.

(2) Even in cases of a decedent who died due to a disease suffered in Vietnam, deeming it as “the war dead” as prescribed in Article 11(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is in line with the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is exempt from taxation on inheritance commenced due to the death of a certain “the war dead” in terms of national policy consideration to honorable persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State

(3) Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax Act, enacted by Act No. 114 of March 22, 1950, provides that the inheritance tax shall not be levied on the injured or sick person who died in action or in the line of duty equivalent thereto, or who died due to a war or in the line of duty equivalent thereto. However, Article 13(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996, prior to the amendment to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) also provides that “where inheritance commences due to death in action or in the line of duty related thereto, death in action or in the line of duty corresponding thereto, inheritance tax shall not be levied on the deceased or wounded person,” and thus, Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the same Act provides that “where inheritance begins due to death in action due to an injury or disease caused by a war or in the line of duty corresponding thereto, the provision before the death or death shall not be determined.”

④ In interpreting as alleged by the Defendant, there is almost little case in which Article 11(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act applies, and as seen earlier, it contradicts the purport of the amendment to expand the scope of the deceased due to diseases caused in the course of performing official duties by deleting the limitation period.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the defendant are dismissed. However, since the "Plaintiff 1" in paragraph (1) of the decision of the court of first instance is less than "the plaintiff 1", it shall be corrected.

Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)