Madern 2013 Schedule 2285

this disposition is justified as a loan to the money that was paid by the ancestor before the

Although the plaintiff asserts that the issue amount that the deceased BB obtained from the deceased was repaid to the deceased, the disposition of this case is justified because the plaintiff who has the burden of proof has failed to prove it.

Busan District Court 2014Guhap466 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

00 Foreign Affairs

000 director of the tax office

on 015 07 09

on January 23, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000 against the Plaintiff on October 0, 00 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiffs’ return and payment of inheritance tax

1) On February 6, 2011, the Plaintiffs are the inheritors of the father’s father’s AAA (hereinafter “the decedent”) who died.

1) The Plaintiffs indicated the date of the disposition seeking revocation in the claim purport and the application for modification of the cause of the claim as of June 11, 2014 as of November 28, 2013. However, in the instant case, the Defendant issued a disposition to determine and notify the Plaintiffs of KRW 00 of the inheritance tax on January 9, 2013, and issued a disposition to reduce or correct the inheritance tax amount to KRW 000 on November 28, 2013. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ disposition seeking revocation in the instant case may be deemed to be detrimental to the portion that remains not revoked by some amount of the disposition as of January 9, 2013, i.e., the original disposition that was reduced.

2) On August 201, 201, the Plaintiffs calculated the inheritance tax base of KRW 600,171,760 by calculating the inheritance tax base of KRW 000,00,00 for inheritance obligations and funeral expenses KRW 5,000,00 for inheritance obligations, as the taxable amount for inheritance, and paid the amount of inheritance tax to be paid as KRW 00,00,00 after filing a return on the amount of inheritance tax to be paid.

3) The details of the inherited property and inheritance debts reported by the Plaintiffs at the time are as follows (hereinafter the real property indicated in Table 1 below is indicated in the same manner as “00-0 miscellaneous land”) using the lot number and land category.

B. Imposition of inheritance tax by the defendant

1) In addition to the inherited property indicated in the above Table 1, B00-2 of 00 Busan 200-00-00, and the above 000-00-00 as well as the inherited property of the inheritee 1, 2000-2 of 300, 20000 won for the above 00-00 land, unlike each real property listed in the above Table 1, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of 2000 for the land of 00-000 which is the wife of BB, 300 won for the above 00-2 of 400, 3000 won for the above 00-2 of 200, 3000 won for the above 00-6, 3000 won for the above 200-6, 3000 won for the above 300-6, 2000 won for the above 200-6, 3005 won for the above aggregate of 20008.

2) Accordingly, on January 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed the property omitted at the time when the Plaintiffs’ inheritance tax return was filed to be inherited property of the inheritee and rendered a disposition to determine and notify KRW 53,296,930 (the amount excluded from the tax amount already paid) of the said KRW 231,830,50 (i.e., KRW 2,418,00 + KRW 5,724,721 + + ③ KRW 223,687,780) as the value of inherited property; and (b) paid KRW 53,296,930 to the Plaintiffs on January 9, 2013.

C. The plaintiffs' tax appeal and corrective disposition

1) However, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 30, 2013 after filing an objection on January 31, 2013, and “BBB and the inheritee repeated several times in the aforementioned adjudication procedure, and settled all bonds and debts in return for the money borrowed by the inheritee from BB to the key amount of the instant case. As such, there is no claim for loans equivalent to the key amount of the instant case against BB against the inheritee. Even if the foregoing loan claim exists, since BB paid all the money exceeding the instant key amount by paying living expenses to the inheritee or paying the principal and interest of the inheritee’s loan debt after 2008, the said disposition of inheritance tax should be revoked.”

2) On November 20, 2013, the Tax Tribunal determined that it is reasonable to exclude KRW 92,930,593 from the inheritance tax,296,630, which was inherited property on February 6, 2011 against the Plaintiffs on January 9, 2011, that BB transferred from its bank account to the bank account of the inheritee in order to repay the principal and interest of the inheritee’s loans from August 26, 2008 to October 6, 2010, the amount of KRW 92,930,593, and global income tax and local income tax and KRW 4,895,060 to be paid in relation to the inheritee’s rental income should be deducted from the inheritance tax, KRW 92,930,593, and KRW 40,594,09,79,09, and the amount of such tax should be corrected to the aggregate of the amount of such taxes imposed by BB to the inheritee.

3) On November 28, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of reducing or correcting the inheritance tax amount to KRW 29,449,770 against the Plaintiffs upon the determination of the said Tax Tribunal (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs were refunded tax amount to KRW 23,847,160 (i.e., KRW 53,296,930 - KRW 29,449,70) that was reduced by the instant disposition. [Grounds for recognition] was without dispute; (ii) evidence Nos. 1 through 4; (iii) evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); (iv) witness testimony; (v) the witness witness testimony; (v) the results of the Party’s personal examination on Plaintiff OO; and (v) the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① Although the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the key issue amount is a loan, the Defendant did not present any grounds for the fact that the key issue amount is a loan.

② BB made loans and repayment of the instant amount several times between the inheritee and BB prior to receiving the instant key amount. However, the Defendant’s loans of KRW 36,00,000 on February 27, 2008 and KRW 150,000,000 on October 6, 2008, 386,000 personal loans of KRW 38,000,000 used by the decedent and KRW 224,312,220,000 used as the purchase fund of the inheritee’s miscellaneous land, excluding KRW 223,687,780,00, which was paid by the inheritee from the inheritee, was paid by the inheritee, and the settlement of accounts was completed by the Defendant’s loans of KRW 150,00 on October 6, 200 and KRW 150,000 on the part of the inheritee’s miscellaneous land. Rather, the amount was not confirmed by the Nonparty’s family members, but merely 201B prior to the instant loan.

③ Even if the key issue amount of the instant case is a loan to BB by the inheritee, considering the fact that the amount paid by BB to the inheritee after receiving the key amount of the instant case was about KRW 140,340,598, and that the amount of the Defendant’s loan owed by BB on behalf of the inheritee was a considerable amount, the said loan was already repaid in full at the time of the death of the inheritee and there was no loan claim against BB by the inheritee.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Nature of the key amount of the instant case

A) The plaintiffs in this case acknowledged that 448,00,000 won, excluding the amount of 336,000,000,000 won and the amount of 150,000,000,000 won from February 27, 2008 loaned by the decedent from No. 000,000 and the amount of 38,000,000,000 won individually used by the decedent, were paid to BB from the decedent. The defendant, out of the above 448,00,00,000 won of the decedent's 00-0,000,000 won used by the decedent as the purchase fund for miscellaneous land owned by the decedent, deemed the loans of the decedent to be loans to BB.

B) However, at the beginning, BB’s face value of KRW 448,00,00 (including the issue amount in this case) which was received from the inheritee. Since, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing a gift tax, the deposit is presumed to have been donated to taxpayers inasmuch as it is revealed that the deposit in the name of a donor was withdrawn by the tax authority and deposited in the account in the taxpayer’s name, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). Thus, even in the case of KRW 448,00,000, not as a donation to BB by the inheritee, it cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have been donated to the inheritee. If it is deemed to have been donated, the amount of gift tax should be added to the amount of KRW 448,00,000 (or the amount of gift tax calculated on the above amount excluding KRW 224,312,20,000, which was added to the value of inherited property under Article 13(16).

However, from among the plaintiffs at the time of 2008, it seems that the home of the plaintiff B00 (BB's wife) was the most economically weak. Under such circumstances, it is very unusual that the defendant received a large amount of KRW 486,00,000 from 0 to 200,000 as collateral for his own real estate, and the defendant paid KRW 448,000 to 20,000 as gift intention. Further, it is difficult to view that the defendant purchased 00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and acquired the ownership of the above 4 00 0 200 20 3 4 00 20 3 4 00 3 00 200 3 4 200 3 4 00 200 20 3 4 00 200 3 4 00 200 3 200 3 4 200 3 200 2 3 4 2000.

C) As above, in the instant case where it is difficult to view the amount of KRW 448,00,000 paid to BB out of the loans on February 27, 2008 and October 6, 2008 to be a donation to BB by the inheritee, unless there is any assertion or proof of other special circumstances as to the developments attributable to BB, it is reasonable to view that the instant key amount is that BB was repaid by the inheritee, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, or lent by the decedent to BB, as alleged by the Defendant, the amount of the instant key issue is that BB was repaid by the decedent, or that the decedent was lent by the decedent, as alleged by the Defendant.

2) Whether BB received the repayment of the loan from the decedent

A) The plaintiffs primarily asserted that the issue amount of this case was not lent by the decedent to BB, but rather was paid approximately KRW 406,117,229 of the amount loaned by BB to the decedent before that date. Thus, the existence of the loan claim against the decedent by BB, which is the premise of the above argument, has the burden of proof to the plaintiffs who asserted it.

B) However, according to the evidence Nos. 6-5 and 10-10 of this Court and the response of July 7, 2014 to the order to submit financial transaction information to the head of 00 No. 100 of this Court, ① transferred 00,000 won from the account of the inheritee to the account of the inheritee on March 18, 2004, ② deposited 00 million won in the account of the inheritee on March 30, 2006, and the above check amount was deposited from the account of the inheritee on February 2, 200, ③ deposited 200 won in the account of the inheritee on February 2, 200, ③ deposited 1 million won in the account of the inheritee on February 2, 200, 200 won and 5 million won in cash from the account of the inheritee’s account on February 2, 200, 2000 won in the above account of the Plaintiff’s account of 200 of this Court’s evidence and evidence No. 4 million.

C) Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the key issue amount of this case is not lending to BB but merely receiving approximately KRW 406,117,229 of the amount loaned by BB to the decedent before that time is paid.

3) Whether BB repaid the loan debt equivalent to the key issue amount of this case

A) In view of the fact that the amount paid by BB to the inheritee after receiving the key amount in this case is about KRW 140,340,598, and the amount of the inheritee’s loan owed by BB on behalf of the inheritee is a considerable amount, the Plaintiffs asserted that the above loan was already paid in full at the time of the death of the inheritee and there was no right to obtain loans against BB from the inheritee. Accordingly, whether BB paid the inheritee a debt equivalent to the key amount in this case to the inheritee has the burden of proving the Plaintiffs.

B) However, the basis for calculating KRW 140,340,598, which the Plaintiffs asserted that BB paid to the inheritee in relation thereto, is as shown in Table 3 below (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on June 11, 2014).

C) However, according to the evidence Nos. 6-5 and 10-10 of the above evidence, since the amount of cash deposit or account transfer claimed by the plaintiffs as the payment amount of March 14, 2008 is recognized as 12,200,000 won at first and second, not to 129,540,598 won, the amount of BB’s payment would be 129,540,598 won. Of the above 129,540,598 won, 92,930,593 won among the above 129,540,598 won was recognized as the payment to the inheritee, and the remaining amount was already reflected in the disposition of this case. The amount was 30,00,000 won paid by BOO to BO, or 30,000 won paid in cash by BB to BO, 2039,3797,797,289,79,797,797,27,2797, etc.

However, in full view of all the evidence as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that BB had not any credit extended to BB of the inheritee at the time of commencing the inheritance by fully repaying the remainder of KRW 130,757,187, in addition to KRW 92,930,593, which was recognized by the Tax Tribunal as a repayment, after having been lent the amount equivalent to the issue amount of this case from the inheritee around February 27, 2008 and October 6, 2008, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

D) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that BB made a full repayment to the decedent after having borrowed the key amount of the instant case from the decedent.

4) Possibility that BB was exempt from the loan obligations equivalent to the key amount of the instant case

A) Meanwhile, although the plaintiffs did not explicitly asserted that in this case, BB was exempted from the debt equivalent to the amount of the issue of this case from the decedent before the decedent died, it can be seen that BB was presented in this case. However, Article 36 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that if BB was exempted from the debt from the obligee, the amount equivalent to the benefit arising from the exemption (in the case of payment of compensation, the amount subtracting the compensation amount) shall be deemed the value of donated property of the person who acquired the benefit. Therefore, if BB was exempted from the debt equivalent to the amount of the issue of this case from the decedent, the amount equivalent to the benefit arising from the exemption may be deemed as the value of donated property of BB and the amount equivalent to the benefit arising from the exemption of the above obligation shall be added to the value of inherited property within five years before the commencement date of inheritance pursuant to Article 13(1)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the amount equivalent to the benefit arising from the exemption shall be deducted from the amount of gift tax calculated as above.

B) However, as to whether BB was exempted from the loan obligation equivalent to the amount of the issue of this case from the inheritee, it is also deemed that there is the burden of assertion and proof against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs did not assert the above exemption of obligation in this case, and the evidence alone cannot be accepted.

C) Therefore, in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that a loan claim against BB of the inheritee was extinguished by the discharge of the inheritee’s obligation before the commencement of the inheritance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is without merit.

shall be determined as above.