beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul High Court 2012Nu16192 (Law No. 23, 2013)
Title
No sales contract shall be deemed the market price as it constitutes a false contract.
Summary
Since it is reasonable to view that a sales contract which causes the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer is a false contract without the actual agreement of the parties, the argument that each purchase and sale contract is valid is incorporated into real estate and the disposition of this case where the above obligation is not deducted as an inheritance obligation is legitimate.
Cases
2013du5029 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax
Plaintiff (Appointed Party)
United StatesAAA
Defendant-Appellee
Head of the tax office;
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu16192 Decided January 23, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
July 11, 2013
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the real estate of this case Nos. 1 and 2 was included in the deceased UBB's inherited property of this case, and determined that the disposition of this case which did not deduct the above debt as inheritance liability was lawful on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (appointed party) alone was insufficient to recognize that the deceased UBB sold the real estate of this case Nos. 1 and 2 to Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "UB") before the birth, and the majority of the price was settled, or that the deceasedB was paid for the third real estate of this case by the designated party excluding the plaintiff (appointed party) and the non-party company's joint ownership, and that the fact that the deceasedB was not paid for the third real estate of this case. In light of the relevant regulations and records, the court below's fact finding and judgment is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, as alleged in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal against the losing party.