Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap34662 (207.08)

Cho High Court Decision 2008Do4110 (Law No. 205, 2009)

In the event that co-inheritors have paid the gift tax on title trust by proxy, it does not constitute an obligation of the decedent.

In concluding a title trust agreement, even if the truster pays on behalf of the truster all the expenses incurred by the trustee in paying on behalf of the truster, it is extremely exceptional to deem that the parties, through the fact that the title trust property is the primary title trust property, or the gift tax is due to the constructive gift of the title trust property to be imposed on the title trustee.

2010Nu24601 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap34622 Decided July 8, 2010

April 19, 2011

June 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s disposition exceeding KRW 5,049,217,510 among the disposition of KRW 6,360,630,90 on July 1, 200 of the inheritance tax imposed on the Plaintiff, the AA, ParkB, ParkB, ParkCC, ParkD, and ParkE shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part added in the following sub-paragraph (b). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional parts

(1)The following shall be added to the 8th twenty (20) judgment of the first instance:

Unless there was any special objection at the time of title trust with respect to the shares of this case to four persons, such as ParkF, an inheritee, etc., the title trustor, shall be deemed to have made an implied agreement by ParkF to take charge of various burdens arising from the said title trust, and the co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have paid the gift tax on behalf of the co-inheritors, in view of the fact that there is no reason for the co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, to give the amount equivalent to the gift tax to ParkF, who is an inheritee, the inheritee, etc. to whom the decedent, should bear, in view of the fact that

Since the time when the title trust agreement on the second shares of this case was concluded (as of October 200) and the process of holding shares thereafter, and the fact of title trust was discovered in the inheritance investigation process by the Seoul Regional Tax Office after the death of the deceased (as of September 16, 2006), the gift tax of this case was imposed on four persons, including ParkGG, etc.. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the co-inheritors requested the above Park GG, etc. to bear the amount of the gift tax on July 20, 2008; and (b) around August 20, 2008, the co-inheritors requested that the above amount of the gift tax was paid by the above Park GG, etc., the materials alone cannot be deemed to have sufficiently proved that there was such agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff; and (c) otherwise, the facts of title trust with shares were discovered to avoid and evade taxes before the death of ParkF, the decedent, who was an inheritee, and there was no reason for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above claim is established.

(ii)At the tenth (6) of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

It is true that the co-inheritors had consulted on the division of inherited property after the death of the deceased FF, but could not divide inherited property by the deliberation and resolution method in dispute as to the subject matter of division and attribution of inherited property. However, since then, an implied agreement was reached between co-inheritors to divide inherited property according to statutory inheritance ratio, so long as ParkB, a co-inheritors, completed inheritance report on March 14, 2007, at least the value of inherited property, which is inherited by the deceased AA, should be included in the subject matter of inheritance deduction.

In the case of this case, since the commencement date of inheritance on September 16, 2006, one association member's relocation right, one's relocation right, one's relocation right, one's relocation right, one's relocation right, one's relocation right, and one's spouse's inheritance division period until September 30, 2007. As seen earlier, the plaintiff and ParkCC filed a lawsuit claiming transfer of share rights to shares issued by AAAA Petroleum Corporation against GJ from Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court on February 27, 2007, Sungwon District Court on February 27, 2007, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming transfer of share rights to shares issued by GA Petroleum Corporation (the pertinent shares were first donated from FF to the effect that they are not inheritance) (the pertinent shares were not subject to inheritance). In light of the fact that the dispute over the division of inherited property between co-inheritors was raised on March 16, 2007 between them, the plaintiff's assertion that the inheritance property was not subject to inheritance recovery within 1's succession period.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.