money received by an heir from his/her workplace upon the death of the decedent shall constitute retirement allowances, etc. with deemed inherited property.

It is reasonable to view that the money of this case paid to the heir due to the death of the decedent at the workplace of the decedent was paid as retirement allowance upon the death of the decedent because the decedent was in the position of representative director, and therefore, barring any special circumstance, it shall be regarded as inherited property pursuant to the main sentence of Article

Article 10 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap20363 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

March 5, 2015

March 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 10, 2012, the Defendant revoked the part exceeding KRW 00,00 among the imposition of the inheritance tax ○○○○ upon the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 00 of the inheritance tax ○○○○○ upon having the taxable value of the inherited property as ○○○○○○ on August 31, 2010, when Nonparty CCC (hereinafter “the decedent”) who is the spouse died on February 18, 2010.

B. The Defendant’s result of the inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiff, before the inheritee on April 23, 2010,

On October 10, 2012, the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DD") discovered that the ○○○○○○○○○ was remitted from the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as "EE") to the ○○○○○○○○○○○, including the above ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the instant issue amount"), was the under-reported amount of inheritance tax (the instant amount is classified as retirement allowances, etc.) and imposed an inheritance tax ○○○○ on the plaintiff on October 10, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition").

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the decision to dismiss on May 2, 2013.

was received.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Under Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax Act"), in order for the Defendant to receive the instant key money as retirement allowances, etc., the Defendant satisfies the requirement that “the amount to be paid to the inheritee”, “retirement allowances, retirement allowances, merit pay, pension or other similar money,” and “the amount to be paid due to the death of the inheritee.” The key issue of this case is that the instant money was paid by two companies based on an insurance contract concluded by DD and EE as a policyholder and beneficiary, so it is so that the instant money was paid to the inheritee.

money to be paid does not constitute "money to be paid".

Even if 'the money to be paid to the decedent', the above money constitutes 'the consolation money paid to the plaintiff by the two companies,' and 'the retirement paid in compensation for long-term work'.

Since gold, retirement allowance, merit bonus, pension, or other money similar thereto cannot be considered as money, it does not constitute subject to the application of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The details of insurance contracts (the insured are all the decedents; hereinafter referred to as "each of the insurance contracts in this case") entered into with the non-party FF insurance company (hereinafter referred to as "FF") and the GG insurance company (hereinafter referred to as "GG") and the insurance proceeds, etc. are as follows.

Insurance Policyholders and Others

Beneficiary

DD

EE

Insurance Company

FF

GG

GG

Description of Goods

Business Guarantee Insurance (Undividend) for Workers;

Undividend ○ Pension Policy (Accumulation type)

○○ Accumulation Insurance (Accumulation type)

○○ Accumulation Insurance (Accumulation type)

Date of contract

January 22, 2010

July 23, 2008

November 5, 2008

November 5, 2008

Payment Date of Insurance Proceeds

April 5, 2010

April 7, 2010

April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

Date of Payment

April 23, 2010

April 23, 2010

April 23, 2010

April 23, 2010

Monthly Payment

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

Total refund

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

Death insurance proceeds

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

Company Reserve Funds

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

Plaintiff’s payment

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

Total amount of payments

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

○ ○

2) At the time of the death of the decedent, the decedent was in office as the representative director of the DD and EE. The replacement list (Evidence 6) of DD indicates that the above 42,00,000 won, which was paid by the above company to FF, was entered into the account that the unpaid dividend ○○ Pension Insurance (Accumulation) was the “retirement Pension Deposit,” and DD and EE answer as follows with regard to the purpose of concluding the insurance contract and the reasons why the two companies paid part of the insurance proceeds received by the above companies to the Plaintiff.

DD

EE

Insurance contracts

Purpose of conclusion

In the case of workplace business guarantee insurance (non-distribution), if workers are involved in an unforeseen accident during their business or business trip, the industrial accident insurance alone is limited to the convenience and welfare of workers, thereby improving the welfare of in-house employees. In the case of remaining insurance, they are subscribed for the purpose of company assets management.

The purpose is to manage the company's assets and pay business travel expenses, etc.

Plaintiff

Grounds for Payment

The purpose of payment is to stabilize the family's livelihood due to the death of the representative director.

D. Determination

The main text of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that the amount of retirement allowances, retirement allowances, merit pay, pension, or others similar thereto to be paid to the decedent shall be deemed inherited property if they are paid due to the death of the decedent. The proviso of the same Article and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the amount of money excluded from the application of the above main sentence shall be deemed inherited property; the survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, or survivors' compensation, paid under the National Pension Act or the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act; the survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, survivors' pension, or survivors' pension paid under the Military Pension Act; the survivors' compensation annuity paid under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; the survivors' compensation annuity or survivors' compensation paid to the worker or survivors' compensation paid to the worker by applying mutatis mutandis the Labor Standards Act, etc. due to the death of the worker on duty;

First of all, we examine whether the issue amount of this case is the amount corresponding to the main sentence of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and examine the following facts revealed in the facts of the above recognition, i.e., where the representative director (the decedent) entered into each of the insurance contracts of this case was caused by an accident such as death, it is necessary to secure financial resources to pay the plaintiff's living stabilization fund, and even in accordance with the replacement table made in DD, the above company paid the insurance money to the plaintiff as "retirement pension". The issue of this case is that since the decedent was in the status of the representative director of DD and EE, it is reasonable that the two companies paid the money as retirement allowance when the decedent died, and therefore, it should be regarded as inherited property pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances.

Furthermore, we examine whether the issue amount of this case can be seen as the amount corresponding to the proviso of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act. The issue amount of this case is arbitrarily paid by DD and EE. Thus, as seen earlier, it is not the amount paid under the National Pension Act, the Public Officials Pension Act, the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff, the Military Pension Act, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the former President Honorable Treatment Act, or the Special Post Offices Act (which does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 4, and 6 of the same Article). The representative director of the corporation, such as the decedent, has the authority to represent the company externally and perform the company affairs, barring any special circumstance, it does not constitute a worker under the standard law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1440, Aug. 20, 209). The plaintiff does not assert or prove the above special circumstance, and there is no issue in the proviso of Article 50 of the former Labor Standards Act (which does not apply to the pertinent case).

Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, the Defendant’s disposition of this case as retirement allowance, etc. is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.