early 2009west3996 ( October 19, 2009)

If the insurance period has elapsed, the maturity shall be deemed the donation date.

Since insurance money is donated property, if an insurance accident occurs during the insurance period, the date of occurrence of the insurance accident shall be deemed the donation date, but if the insurance period has elapsed without occurrence of the insurance accident, the maturity shall be

2010Guhap32648 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for rectification of inheritance tax

BB

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

February 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The defendant revoked the disposition of 238,422,530 won of inheritance tax imposed on the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the designated party on August 10, 2009 (the "decision of rejection of an application for rectification of inheritance tax base stated in the purport of the claim" seems to be a clerical error in the disposition of 238,42,530 won of inheritance tax).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2007, the deceased LeeB (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died on June 11, 2007, the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") filed a tax base return on the inheritance tax with the amount of deduction, such as the value of the inherited property, KRW 2,884,747,642, 186,695,040, 186,695,040, 209, 209, 207, 212, the taxable value of the inherited property, which is KRW 2,675,240,430, 207.

B. On June 22, 2009, the plaintiff et al. filed a claim against the defendant on July 15, 2005 for the exclusion of the deceased's inherited property since the plaintiff et al. added up the inherited property period of the donated property stipulated in Article 13 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 13 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998).

C. On August 10, 2009, the Defendant deemed that each of the instant insurance proceeds is included in KRW 2,675,240,430 of the taxable value of inherited property, and imposed gift tax on each of the instant insurance proceeds on the Plaintiff and Eliminants on August 10, 2009, and at the same time, deemed each of the instant insurance proceeds as donated property under Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”) and determined and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of KRW 238,42,530 of inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On October 19, 2009, the Plaintiff et al. filed an appeal on the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 24, 2010.

[Grounds for Recognition: there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) The deceased did not pay each of the insurance premiums of this case on July 8, 1998, but paid each of the insurance premiums of this case from the deceased on the same day, and each of the premiums of this case was paid on the same day after the deceased was donated to the deceased on the same day from the deceased on the same day. Thus, the amount equivalent to the above insurance premiums is not donated with the amount equivalent to the above insurance premiums within five years as stipulated in Article 13 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998) from June 11, 2007, which was the commencement date of inheritance. Thus, the amount equivalent to the above insurance premiums is not a gift

2) Even if not, since each of the instant insurance contracts is identical to the deposit, it cannot be deemed as life insurance or non-life insurance as prescribed by Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the deceased and the Plaintiff and the Appointor A have donated each of the instant insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff and the Appointor A.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) Article 13(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998) provides that the value of property donated by an ancestor to an heir within five years before the date of commencing the inheritance shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property, but Article 13(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 511, Jan. 1, 1999) of the revised Act (amended by Act No. 13(1)1 of December 28, 1998) shall extend the total period of ten years to impose inheritance tax on which liability to pay insurance money is established after the enforcement of the amended Act (Article 13(4)1 of the Addenda). Since the above provision provides that the value of property donated by an ancestor to an heir shall be added to the inherited property before the commencement of each of the donations by applying the previous provisions of Article 13(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act within 15 years before the date of commencing the inheritance.

B) However, considering that Gap evidence Nos. 4, 13, 5, and 7's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9's respective statements in Nos. 4 and 8 and 9's respective statements, the plaintiff and the designated parties shall sign their respective insurance contracts with the deceased on July 8, 1998 when signing each of the instant insurance contracts with 00 units of insurance premium under the name of the deceased's name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 223,650,00 won for each of the instant insurance contracts on July 8, 1998 (Plaintiff 106,50,000 won for each of the instant insurance premiums under the name of the plaintiff and the designated parties to the instant insurance contracts) and the actual payment of the insurance premium No. 2 under the name of the plaintiff and the deceased's insurance premium No. 98, which is the actual payment date under the name of the plaintiff and the designated parties to the instant insurance contracts.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the second argument

A) The former part of Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that in case of life insurance or non-life insurance, if there is a difference between the beneficiary of insurance money and the payer of insurance premium, the amount of insurance money shall be deemed the value of donated property

Here, life insurance contract refers to an insurance contract under which the insurer pays a certain amount of money to the policyholder or third party's life or death and the policyholder agrees to pay insurance premium, which is an insurance contract which is a life or death of the policyholder, etc. (Article 730 of the Commercial Act). However, in the case of life insurance which is an insured accident against the death of the insured, the insurer may agree to pay insurance premium when the insurance period expires without occurrence of the insurance accident (Article 735 of the Commercial Act). In the case of life insurance which is a life insurance contract, a so-called additional security insurance contract which requires a special agreement covering illness or injury in the life insurance contract may be concluded. In accordance with the provisions of the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that the payment insurance premium is an insurance contract that clearly distinguishable from the risk insurance premium and the savings insurance premium amount used for investment in order to form

On the other hand, in accordance with the above related laws, since insurance money is donated property, if an insurance accident occurred during the insurance period, the date of occurrence of the insurance accident shall be deemed as the donation date, but if the insurance period has elapsed without occurrence of the insurance accident,

B) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of arguments as to the whole indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 13 of this case’s health care benefit, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 7’s 1, 2, Gap evidence No. 12, and 13, according to each of the insurance contracts of this case, policyholders, prime insured, beneficiaries are all plaintiffs or designated A., and contract contractor is at least 5% of the insurance period (from July 8, 1998 to July 8, 2003) upon the death of the insured or disability of Grade 1 to Grade 6 due to a disaster, the insured’s death benefit is paid and the insured’s life insurance benefit is at least 30% of the insurance premium of this case’s insurance premium of this case’s 60% of the total insurance premium of this case’s 60% of the total insurance premium of this case’s insurance premium of this case’s 60% of the total insurance premium of this case’s insurance premium of this case’s 25% of death insurance premium of this case’s insurance premium of this case.

3. Conclusion

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