Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap5631 ( November 11, 2016)

Calculation of Preliminary Donation and Inheritance Real Estate Value

The money transferred from the deceased constitutes a donation, and the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance property and the assessment of the inheritance tax base differs from the purpose and method. This circumstance does not have any binding force in evaluating the market value of inherited property.

Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Appraisal of Real Estate

2016Nu7611 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

IsaA

BB Head of tax office et al.1

November 11, 2016

2017.12

oly 2017.17

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

On December 4, 2015, the decision of the first instance is revoked. On December 4, 2015, the part of the disposition by the director of the tax office of defendant BB in excess of the owon among the disposition by the director of the tax office of defendant B shall be revoked, and the disposition by the director of the tax office of Seocho shall be revoked

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and even if each evidence submitted in the first instance court is examined by both the evidence No. 24 through No. 30 (including the paper numbers) submitted in the trial, the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

The third side of the fifth side "i.e., the deceased remitted Doowon to the plaintiff, the son, on or around January 13, 2004, and on November 14, 2004, the deceased transferred Doowon, Doowon, and Doo EE to the plaintiff, the son, and on or around November 14, 2006, transferred Doowon and Doowon on or around April 12, 2006. The deceased transferred Doowon and Doowon on or around February 23, 2004. While the compensation for expropriation of the land of this case was Doowon, the amount the plaintiff received from the deceased did not differ from other forms of punishment, it is further recognized that CCC, DD, and EE received each of the above money from the deceased."

Part VI "President" in Part VI shall be regarded as Presidential Decree.

제7쪽 제6행의 "없다" 다음에 "(원고는, 망인의 상속인들 사이의 유류분 반환청구사건에서 이 사건 부동산의 시가가 ooo원으로 인정되었으므로 이 사건에서도 이 사건 부동산의 시가를 ooo원으로 보아야 한다고 주장하나, 갑 제18, 19호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 위 사건에서 망인의 상속인들이 이 사건 부동산을 QQQ에게 매도한 매매계약을 추인함에 따라 그 매매대금 ooo원을 적극적 상속재산에 포함시켜 유류분을 산정하는 내용의 판결이 이루어졌음을 알 수 있는데, 유류분 산정과 상속세 과세표준 산정은 그 목적과 방법을 달리하는 것이어서 위와 같은 사정은 상속세 부과를 위하여 상속재산의 시가를 평가함에 있어서는 아무런 구속력을 가지지 아니하므로, 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.)"를 추가한다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.