Classification of the tax amount payable by each co-inheritors. The propriety of any non-specified disposition

The Defendant’s taxation of this case against the Plaintiffs is divided into the tax amount to be paid by each co-inheritors. The Defendant did not specify the amount of tax to be paid by each co-inheritors, but did not attach the specification of notified tax amount by each taxpayer, and there is a defect in the method of imposition.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 59,510,080 as inheritance tax against the plaintiffs on January 3, 1994 and KRW 9,88,270 as defense tax shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

원고들은 1990. 5. 16. 사망한 소외 망 황ㅇㅇ의 처자들로서 상속받은 재산에 대한 상속세 신고를 하면서 상속개시전 5년 이내에 망인으로부터 증여받은 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 답 1,026㎡ 및 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지외 1필지 전 785㎡ 등을 신고하지 아니한 사실, 이에 피고는 원고들의 위 상속재산의 상속개시당시 가액을 합계 금 291,600,000원으로 평가한 다음 이에 대하여 1994. 1. 3. 원고들에게 상속세 금 59,510,080원 및 방위세 9,888,270원의 부과처분을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

When a tax office issues a tax notice to co-inheritors, it shall specify not only the name of co-inheritors who are liable for tax payment but also the amount of tax imposed which is subdivided corresponding to each of their shares of inheritance by the taxpayer, and shall also state or attach the grounds for calculation thereof or the details of calculation, and the taxation disposition omitted such statement or attachment shall be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu387, May 27, 1993).

그런데 갑 제1호증의 1, 갑 제8, 9, 10호증의 각 기재와 ㅇㅇ우체국장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고가 원고들에 대한 이 사건 과세처분을 함에 있어서 납세고지서에 공동상속인들인 원고들이 부담하여야 할 각 세액과 그 계산명세의 기재를 누락한 채 납세의무자를 황ㅇㅇ외 4 로 표기하고 과세금액은 원고들에게 부과된 상속세 총액과 그 산출근거만을 기재하여, 1994. 1. 5. 원고 황ㅇㅇ의 주소지로 원고들 각자에 대하여 그와 같은 납세고지서 5매를 송달하고 소외 황ㅇㅇ이 이를 수령하여 원고들에게 전달한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's taxation of this case against the plaintiffs is unlawful without examining the remaining issues, since the tax amount to be paid by each co-inheritors was not specified, and the detailed statement of notified tax amount by each taxpayer was not attached, and there was a defect in the method of imposition and notification.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking revocation of the tax disposition against the plaintiffs is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

February 8, 1996