Early High Court Decision 2008J 4144 (Law No. 22, 2009)

Inheritance obligations to be deducted from the value of inherited property;

The burden of proof of the existence of inheritance obligation is against the person liable to pay the tax, and the plaintiff claims that there is the obligation to return the deposit, but it is difficult to deem that there is the inheritance obligation because it is a joint rental business operator of the building between the decedent and

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 583,264,802 against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2008 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 2006, the Plaintiff reported KRW 11,116,829,70,368 of inheritance tax as the taxable value of inherited property, and KRW 3,013,573,368 of inheritance tax, excluding KRW 16,614,00,000 of inherited property value of KRW 16,021,797,967 (including debt 1,690,000,000 of financial institutions, etc., and KRW 2,034,000 of deposit obligation, and other debt 890,000,000 of KRW 11,116,829,705 of inheritance tax, and paid KRW 2,60,018,00,000 of annual installments paid on April 23, 2007, excluding KRW 3,013,000,0263539,2639.

B. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the decedent head A, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China notified the Defendant of a decision-making proposal with respect to the amount of KRW 500,000,000 for the obligation to return the lease deposit against the decedent headD (hereinafter “the obligation to return the deposit of this case”) and other liability of KRW 440,00,000 for the amount of KRW 12,074,224,269 for the taxable value of inherited property.

C. On September 17, 2008, the Defendant determined the total determined tax amount as KRW 3,645,951,782 in accordance with the above written resolution, and notified the Plaintiff, a representative heir, of KRW 632,378,414 in the amount of inheritance tax deducted for the year 2006.

D. The plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 26, 2008. On June 22, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rendered a partial decision that "the amount of KRW 80,000,000, out of KRW 280,000,000, which the head of the inheritee borrowed from the NAB on July 6, 2002, shall be the inheritance obligation (hereinafter the above 280,000,000, which was 80,000,000, which was recognized as the inheritance obligation, deducted from the inheritance obligation from KRW 280,00,00,000, which was 200,000, which was 200,000, which was 200,000,000, which was 20,0000,000,000 won, which was 49,13,612,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The obligation to return the security deposit of this case against Do Governors

(A) In light of the foregoing, the building of 2nd above ground and 6th above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) owned 8/10 and 2/10 shares of the decedent, and the head of the Dong, a majority of right holders, agreed to settle the part corresponding to the profits of DoD, and the head of the Dong, a majority of right holder, continued to manage the instant building, and the head of the Dong and DoD agreed that 500,000, out of the profits from the management of the instant building, 500,000 shares of DoD (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(B) In addition, on April 1, 2006, 2006, Do Governors concluded a lease contract of KRW 500,000,000 as to the instant theater (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) and agreed that Do Governors shall pay Do Governors KRW 500,00,000 as the lease deposit of the instant theater (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) after resolving the problems of the EEEE EE theater, which was located in the instant building (hereinafter “the instant theater”).

(C) Therefore, the instant disposition that was imposed by calculating inheritance tax without deducting the amount of the inherited property, even though it is an inheritance obligation that should be deducted from the value of the inherited property, is unlawful.

(2) The loan obligations of this case against NAB

(A) On July 16, 2002, the decedent’s head borrowed KRW 280,000,000 from the HB, and the HB paid the above money to the head of the Dong branch of the FF Bank: (a) 2 copies of the cashier’s checks and 10,000,000 won; and (b) 8 copies of the cashier’s checks and 10,000,000 won.

(B) Therefore, the instant disposition that was imposed by calculating inheritance tax without deducting the amount of the inherited property, even though it is an inheritance obligation that should be deducted from the inherited property value, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Burden of proof regarding the liability for inheritance to be deducted from the value of inherited property

Since the inheritance obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the taxable value of inherited property, it shall be deemed that the person liable for tax payment who contests the taxable value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 74Nu75, Oct. 26, 1976; 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983).

(2) Determination as to the obligation to return the instant security deposit

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings, evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and witness testimony of part of the building of this case: (i) the fact that on May 22, 1993 with respect to the building of this case, 8/10 shares preservation registration in the name of the head of the building of this case and 2/10 shares preservation registration in the name of the head of the DoD were completed; (ii) the head of the building of this case and DoD entered into the instant lease contract of this case on April 1, 206; (iii) the head of the building and DoD were registered as the joint rental business entity from 1993 to October 24, 2006, and reported the comprehensive income tax according to their respective shares in possession; and (iv) the head of the building of this case was paid from Do to 2000,000.

(B) However, in case where it is extremely exceptional that the statement of No. 4 (Certificate of Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

(C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that, under the agreement of this case, the head of the Dong had the obligation to pay 500,000,000 won with profits to the head of the Gu, on the premise that the head of the Gu had the obligation to pay 500,000,000 won with profits to the head of the Gu, and 50,000,000 won with the lease deposit in the instant theater is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the loan obligations of this case

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the testimony of the witness Gap, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and part of the testimony of the witness YB, the following facts are found: (i) on July 16, 2002, HB between the head of the FF BankCC and the KF BankCC branch 100,000 won cashier's checks 2 and 10,000,000 won; (ii) on September 3, 2002, HBG, the father of HBB, find 320,000 won by cashier's checks from the name of the Industrial Bank of Korea, the Industrial Bank of Korea of September 3, 200; and (iii) on August 30, 200, 2000 won from loans to the GG branch 70,000,000 won, each of the loans to the GFG branch 300,8.200.

(B) However, it is difficult to find out that: (a) Party B’s testimony partially constitutes “AB” (a) and “BB”’s testimony based on the fact that Party B lent KRW 200,000,000,000, which was found at the FF BankCCdong point on July 16, 2002 to Party B; (b) Party B did not clearly indicate the reasons why Party B borrowed KRW 200,000,000 from Party B; (b) Party B’s testimony was 00,000,000,000,000 won as interest; and (c) Party B’s testimony was 0,000,000,000 won to Party B or its heir; (d) Party B’s testimony was 00,000,000,000,000 won to Party B or its heir; and (e) Party B’s testimony was 20,000,0000,000,000 of the instant loan obligation.

(C) Therefore, there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s partial objection.

3. Conclusion

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