beta
Text
1. Upon receipt of a claim for change in exchange at the trial, inheritance tax on July 1, 2014 that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiffs on July 1, 2014.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 6, 2009, Plaintiff B’s husband, Plaintiff A, and C’s father of the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax return (hereinafter “the decedent”). On September 24, 2009, the Plaintiffs died with the value of inherited property KRW 2,378,247,035, and the decedent died due to the aftermath of defoliants due to the Vietnam War. As the decedent died due to the aftermath of defoliants, the decedent was exempted from inheritance tax on the deceased et al. under Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”), and reported inheritance tax on the deceased’s inherited property.
B. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the decedents; (b) imposed a notice on the Plaintiff on: (c) KRW 471,008,480 (including additional taxes: KRW 87,482,317) calculated by adding the value of the inherited property to KRW 2,368,601,325; and (d) on July 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the additional tax on the ground that the type of the additional tax and the calculation basis were not stated; and (e) imposed a notice on the Plaintiff as a joint obligor of the inheritance tax on KRW 87,482,317 (general under-reported additional taxes: KRW 38,352,616; KRW 49,129,701; and (e) KRW 471,08,480 (including the disposition of this case); and (e) imposed a notice on the Plaintiff’s heir’s tax amount to be paid for each of the Plaintiff’s heir.
C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the “disposition imposed and notified by the Defendant on December 1, 2010” and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 25, 201, but the said appeal was dismissed on June 28, 201.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 21, 33, 34, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the decedents were exposed to defoliants during the Vietnam War, and they have a dives of defoliants.