Suwon District Court 201Guhap998 ( November 16, 2012)

Unclaimed bonds can be deemed to be owned by the inheritee until the commencement of the inheritance.

(1) In light of the circumstances such as the fact that there was no agreement between the heir and the heir on the division, etc. of the inherited property before and after the death of the court of first instance (as in the judgment of the court of first instance), attempted claims can be deemed to be owned by the decedent until the commencement of the inheritance

2012Nu3717 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

1.A 2. high-B

Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap998 Decided November 16, 2012

September 11, 2013

October 16, 2013

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of each of the imposition of the inheritance tax OOOOO on July 21, 2012 and the imposition of each additional tax OOOOOOO on September 3, 2013 is revoked (the plaintiff has changed its claim to seek the revocation of the disposition of imposition on September 3, 2013 as to the additional tax amount at the time of the trial).

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the deletion or addition as follows, and the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the new argument that the plaintiff raised in the trial at the trial at the next time is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

○ Part 3 of the 16th page (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") shall be deleted.

○ The following shall be added to not more than 17 pages 3 and below:

F. After that, on June 27, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of each additional tax on the instant disposition, and notified the Plaintiffs of the prior notice on July 5, 2013 to the effect that the additional tax is to be newly imposed, attached to the assessment basis and the calculation basis of the amount of tax, and again imposed each additional tax on the Plaintiffs on September 3, 2013 (hereinafter the Defendant’s imposition of each additional tax on July 21, 2012 and each imposition of additional tax on the additional tax on September 3, 2013 collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

○, on the 3rd page 17, add â…………………§ 12 through 17 (including paper numbers)' to the ground for recognition.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiffs did not attach a calculation statement when the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax at the time of the instant disposition, which violates the provisions of Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 79(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning notification of the determination of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax. Thus, the instant disposition

However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 11 (including paper numbers), it can be recognized that the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the tax base and tax amount calculation basis of inheritance tax by specifying the tax base and tax amount calculation basis in the notice. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed, and the changed plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in exchange in the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition.