early 2010 Heavy2565 ( November 16, 201)

Since it is improper to go through the procedure of the previous trial, it shall be dismissed.

Since no objection was raised until 90 days after the time limit for the appeal, the appeal was filed after the lapse of the above time limit, the appeal with the lapse of the time limit for filing the appeal is unlawful and eventually, the lawsuit in this case is also dismissed as it is unlawful without going through the procedure of the previous trial.

2011Guhap254 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

Max 1 other

O Head of tax office

May 24, 2011

July 12, 2011

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 86,821,663 out of KRW 347,286,653 of the inheritance tax return and the penalty tax against the Plaintiffs on May 14, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Eight children of each Party, including the Plaintiffs, had succeeded to their property on October 13, 2006 by way of their death on October 13, 2006, but did not report and pay inheritance tax by the deadline for filing inheritance tax.

B. Accordingly, on February 1, 2009, the defendant imposed 1,127,032,630 won of inheritance tax on eight co-inheritors including the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition against the plaintiffs"). The above notice was served on February 13, 2009 on the plaintiff JungB and on February 17, 2009 on the plaintiff JungCC respectively.

C. From among co-inheritors on August 17, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a civil petition that they should reduce inheritance tax because static received a prior donation from EA before death from EA. As such, the defendant revised the original disposition to KRW 1,103,792,320 on May 3, 2010 after undergoing an additional investigation on December 3, 2009, but again revised the further reduction to KRW 1,102,713,850 on May 28, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “reduction disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed the instant lawsuit with the Tax Tribunal on July 29, 2010, on the grounds that the period for request on November 16, 2010 was elapsed, respectively. However, on December 6, 2010, the said Office filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that penalty KRW 86,821,663 out of the amount for taxation of inheritance tax as above is unreasonable.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

The plaintiff JungB served a notice of imposition of the inheritance tax of this case on February 13, 2009, and on February 17, 2009, the plaintiff JungCC served the notice of imposition of each of the inheritance tax of this case. Thus, the plaintiff JungB shall file an objection, request for examination, or request for judgment within 90 days thereafter. Since the above period has elapsed, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not go through legitimate procedure

C. Determination

(1) In a case where a correction disposition that reduces the tax base and amount of tax is not the initial and separate separate taxation disposition, but the substance of the disposition is not the alteration of the initial and separate taxation disposition and the favorable effect of the taxpayer’s revocation of part of the tax amount, and thus, the part remaining without revocation still remains illegal, the object of an appeal litigation is not yet revoked by a correction disposition among the initial dispositions, and it does not constitute a subject of an appeal litigation. Therefore, whether a correction disposition has undergone a lawful pre-trial procedure should be determined based on the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16403, May 28, 2009).

(2) In order to be lawful, the plaintiffs must undergo lawful pre-trial procedures. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiffs received each of the original dispositions of this case on February 13, 2009, and February 17, 2009, and they did not raise any objection until 90 days have passed since the expiration of the period for filing an objection, a request for examination, or a request for adjudgment after the lapse of the above period, and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal on August 17, 2009 and July 29, 2010. Thus, the above request for a trial, which had attempted to pass the period, is unlawful, and the lawsuit of this case is also unlawful, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.