Whether the title trust property can be recognized on the basis of the result adjusted by the heir in a different lawsuit against the land in this case

Mediation is effective between the parties, so it cannot be asserted to the tax authority that the title trust is valid, and mediation is only effective after the establishment of a new legal relationship, and there is no reason to deduct this since the land in this case belongs to the decedent at the time of commencement of inheritance.

Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act

2014Guhap13065 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a claim for refund of inheritance tax

IsaA

Director of the District Office

April 3, 2015

April 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on October 21, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The relationship between the parties;

1) The Plaintiff is the spouse of the network sphereB (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the competenceCC and DoD are the deceased’s children, the E is the mother of the deceased, and the AuthorityF is the father of the deceased.

2) In around 2006, the Deceased died on September 24, 2010, when he was diagnosed with gG hospitals, HH hospitals, etc.

B. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased and provisional registration in the name of E in the name of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land listed in the separate sheet") on each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land listed in the separate sheet", and the individual land is specified as "the land listed in the order of

1) As to the land No. 1 of this case, the ownership transfer registration was completed on January 8, 1986 under the name of the deceased. E completed the provisional registration for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground of a pre-sale agreement as of May 16, 2003, the receipt of the Jung-gu Government District Court, Yangyang Branch Branch, Yangyang Branch, Registry (hereinafter referred to as the “Mayang Registry”) No. 33498, May 9, 2003.

2) As to the land of this case Nos. 2 through 6, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the deceased (one half of the deceased) and the title II (one half of the shares) on March 4, 1991; March 22, 191; April 2, 1991; and April 10, 191; and the ownership transfer registration was completed on November 28, 1994; and April 19, 195. EE completed the provisional registration for the provisional registration on October 8, 2002, No. 88309, Sept. 27, 2002, each of the instant lands was registered under the name of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the provisional registration of each of the instant lands").

C. Plaintiff’s return of inheritance tax and Defendant’s imposition of inheritance tax

1) On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff included the inherited property in the inherited property, and reported the taxable value of the inherited property to the Defendant as an OOO, and the tax base to the Defendant. Of the aggregate of the inheritance tax amount calculated according to the above reported details, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid OO won in cash among the OOO won, and filed an application for annual installments for the remainder.

2) On August 1, 2012, and January 2, 2013, the Defendant determined and notified the total amount of inheritance tax as an OOO member by adding inherited property, insurance money, etc. to inherited property and reducing a spouse deduction excessively reported.

D. The establishment of lawsuits and conciliation between the plaintiff, the competentCC, and the E-E (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") and E

1) On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against E (E) claiming the implementation, etc. of the procedure for the cancellation registration of each of the provisional registration of this case as 201Gayang support 201Gahap9761, by asserting that the Plaintiff et al. owned the deceased and succeeded to each of the instant lands, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case, “The provisional registration of this case would have been completed without the consent of the deceased,” and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff et al.’s claim for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the instant land of this case on July 26, 2012, and ordered E et al. to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of each of the rights transfer registration of the instant land of this case as to the instant land of this case (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance of this case”).

2) The Plaintiff, etc. and EE appealed respectively from the above judgment, and on November 16, 2012, during the appellate trial, mediation was concluded as follows (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

3) On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff included the inherited property in the inherited property, and reported the taxable value of the inherited property to the Defendant as an OOOO, and the tax base to the Defendant. Of the aggregate of the inheritance tax amount calculated according to the above reported details, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid OO won in cash among the OOO won, and filed an application for annual installments for the remainder.

4) On August 1, 2012 and January 2, 2013, the Defendant determined and notified the total amount of inheritance tax to be determined and notified as OOO members by adding inherited property, insurance money, etc. to inherited property and reducing the excessive spouse deduction, etc. reported.

D. The establishment of lawsuits and conciliation between the plaintiff, the competentCC, and the E-E (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") and E

1) On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against E (E) claiming the implementation, etc. of the procedure for the cancellation registration of each of the provisional registration of this case as 201Gayang support 201Gahap9761, by asserting that the Plaintiff et al. owned the deceased and succeeded to each of the instant lands, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case, “The provisional registration of this case would have been completed without the consent of the deceased,” and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff et al.’s claim for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the instant land of this case on July 26, 2012, and ordered E et al. to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of each of the rights transfer registration of the instant land of this case as to the instant land of this case (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance of this case”).

2) The Plaintiff, etc. and EE appealed respectively from the above judgment, and on November 16, 2012, during the appellate trial, mediation was concluded as follows (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

1. The plaintiffs confirmed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list was the property held by the defendant in title trust with the net rightB, and that the defendant terminated the title trust with the network rightB, and that the defendant completed the registration of the right to transfer ownership as stated in the following Paragraph 2.

2. Based on the registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration as to the land listed in Section 1 of Schedule 1 attached hereto, the plaintiffs shall follow the procedure for the principal registration of each transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration as to the land listed in Sections 2 through 6 of Schedule 1 attached hereto, which was received on May 16, 2003 by the Jung-gu District Court, Yangyang-dong Branch Office, Yangyang-dong Office, and Yangyang-dong Office, which was received on October 8, 2002.

3. The Plaintiffs, by November 20, 2012, filed an application for the cancellation of the enforcement of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the disposition, No. 2012Kahap278 on real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 2012.

4. The Plaintiffs shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the ground of the instant conciliation as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3.

5. The defendant shall pay OOO members to the plaintiffs jointly with the mediation intervenor, and the remaining OOO members shall be paid not later than December 7, 2012, and within 15 days from the date the ownership transfer registration under paragraphs 2 and 4 has been completed. Provided, That if the plaintiffs have delayed an application for cancellation of provisional disposition under paragraph 3, the payment period of the above OO members shall be extended as much as the delayed period. The above money shall be paid in the form of remitting-O-8O-8O1 (JJ for Deposit) account in the new bank.

6. In the event that the Defendant fully pays the money set forth in paragraph 5, the Plaintiffs apply for the rescission of the enforcement of the disposition of selling gold (No. 2012Kahap278), which was made on the land set forth in O-Gu O-dong 173, 173-2, and 173-3, O-si O-dong O-dong O-si.

7. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs all taxes and public charges imposed on the Plaintiffs, regardless of the name, such as inheritance tax, additional tax, gift tax, global income tax, etc., arising from the inheritance commenced due to the death of the network sphereB. If there is a tax to be revoked or returned out of the above taxes and public charges, it shall be reverted to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant respectively to one-

8. If the defendant or the conciliation intervenor delays the obligations referred to in paragraph 5, he/she shall immediately lose the benefit of time and shall pay 20% (20%) interest per annum on the payable amount.

9. The Plaintiffs withdraw their respective lawsuits seeking confirmation of the shareholder status (including confirmation of the shareholder status (including the consolidated 2012da36214) at the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2012da33796 (including confirmation of the shareholder status) including cancellation of the ownership transfer registration (No. 12279) in the U.S. Government District Court, the High Court, the High Court, the

10.The taxes and public charges resulting from the transfer of ownership in paragraphs 2 and 4 shall be borne by all by the Defendant.

11.The plaintiffs waive the remainder of claims.

12.The total costs of the litigation and the conciliation costs shall be borne respectively by each party.

E. Plaintiff’s claim for correction of inheritance tax

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification of the inheritance tax base and tax amount with the content that the deceased’s initial return on the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax included in the inherited property and exceeds the legitimate tax base and tax amount under the tax law, on the grounds that the land Nos. 2 through 6 of this case, which was held in title by EE, was included in the inherited property and thus, exceeds the reasonable tax base and tax amount under the tax law.

F. Defendant’s rejection of correction

In this regard, according to the judgment of the first instance court of the relevant case, the Defendant confirmed that EE cannot be deemed to have held title trust on the deceased’s land Nos. 2 and 6 of this case, and notified the deceased of his/her refusal to rectify the Plaintiff on October 21, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 8, 9, 12, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since land Nos. 2 through 6 of this case is a property trusted by EE to the deceased, the inheritance tax base and tax amount calculated by including the said land in inherited property should be reduced according to the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The tax authority shall, in principle, assume the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of the facts requiring taxation. This also applies to a case where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the property and the actual owner of the property are different, barring special circumstances, such as there exists a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. Provided, That a person registered as an owner of real estate is presumed to acquire the ownership by legitimate procedures and causes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002; 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). As long as the tax authority imposed tax on the real estate by deeming the registered owner as the nominal owner of the real estate, the fact that the registration was based on the title trust may arise from the said taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du935, May 16, 2014).

On the other hand, mediation is established by stating the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol, and the mediation protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of judicial compromise, and thus has the same effect as that of a final and conclusive judgment. If mediation is established between the parties, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous disputed legal relationship is extinguished, and a new relationship of rights and obligations based on the content of mediation is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821, Jun. 29, 2006). The same effect as a final and conclusive judgment recognized in the mediation protocol extends only to the judgment on the existence of legal relationship which is a subject matter of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da32273, Jan. 24, 1997; 2006Da373

2) Considering the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, and the purport of evidence No. 4-2 through No. 7, 10, and 11, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed that the deceased’s land Nos. 2 through 6 of this case was a real estate trusted in title from E, and that it is included in the Plaintiff’s inherited property as the ownership of the deceased at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Accordingly, the disposition of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on different

A) In a civil lawsuit (No. 1) with the Plaintiff, etc. (No. 2011, 2011, 9761, 2012Na6415, the appellate court, and Seoul High Court 2012Na6415, the appellate court; hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit”), the EE submitted as evidence a confirmation of the previous virtue that it arranged the sales contract between the seller of the instant land and the seller of the instant 2 or 6 and a provisional registration certificate for the instant 2 or 6 land. However, the E did not submit as evidence the certificate of completion of the ownership transfer registration for the instant 2 or 6 land. Unlike the submission of the sales contract and the receipt for the instant land under the name of the EE concerning the instant 1, it did not submit such evidence as to the instant 2 or 6 land.

B) The Plaintiff deemed that the land Nos. 2 through 6 of this case is included in the inherited property, and reported the taxable value and tax base of the inherited property (the Plaintiff asserted that EE voluntarily reported the inheritance under the name of the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), and thereafter, the Plaintiff et al. asserted that each of the instant land did not exist a title trust agreement between the deceased and E in the related litigation, and the Plaintiff et al. concluded the instant conciliation before the appellate court, and the Plaintiff et al. filed a request for correction

C) Although the instant protocol provides that the Plaintiff et al. confirms that EE was entrusted with each of the instant lands in the name of the deceased, the effect of the instant protocol is only between the Plaintiff et al. and E and the Plaintiff et al. who are parties to the instant protocol, and it cannot be deemed that it did not affect the Defendant et al., a third party. Therefore, the said provision does not affect the determination of whether the instant land Nos. 2 through 6 was owned by the deceased as of the commencement

D) Even if an EE had earned income at the time of purchasing the instant land Nos. 2 through 6 and had paid the purchase price, it is only reasonable to deem that E had donated the said purchase price to the deceased, and it cannot be readily concluded that the instant land Nos. 2 through 6 was a title trust with the deceased as the ownership of EE.

E) With the landowner’s consent to use, the building may be set up on the land owned by another and owned by the deceased. Considering the relationship between the deceased and E, there is a possibility that EE would allow EE to use the instant 3 and 6 land on that land by allowing E to do so.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.