logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2009. 08. 12. 선고 2008구합1628 판결
공동상속인에 대한 상속세 납세고지[국패]
Case Number of the previous trial

Early High Court Decision 2007Du1902 ( December 31, 2007)

Title

Inheritance Tax Payment Notice to co-inheritors

Summary

A notice of tax payment having the effect of specifically identifying each of the tax obligations to co-inheritors shall be deemed unlawful to divide and specify the amount of tax to be paid individually to each of the co-inheritors, and to impose the total amount of inheritance tax en bloc on the inheritor.

The decision

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Text

1. On March 21, 2007, the part that exceeds KRW 285,722,323 of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 1,038,686,90 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same is as the order (the date of the disposition of the complaint is the date of March 22, 2007).

Reasons

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and AA’s words are co-inheritors of BB exchangeed on June 19, 2005.

B. In filing an inheritance tax return on December 18, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed the value of 00 ○○○○○○○○○-gun 354-1 306 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) among inherited property; (b) deemed the value of 65 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2, which is the value of 45.7 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,89,89,021,482, which is 13,318,391,513; and (c) deducted the inheritance tax amount of 2,57 m2,000 m2,07 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,360,000 m2,07.

D. However, the notice of the instant disposition issued by the Defendant did not state the duty amount to be individually paid by the Plaintiff and AAB, and the Plaintiff stated only one of the two joint taxpayers, the total inheritance tax amount, and the basis for calculation, and there was no specification stating the individual tax amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 3-1, 2, evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 4-1, 4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The Plaintiff and AA’s notice of the instant disposition did not state the tax amount that the Plaintiff and AA’s words individually paid and the details of its calculation are not indicated, and thus, they were unlawful.

(2) Since the instant land and the instant land ○○○○○○-gun ○○○○○○○○-gun 354-28 large 1,457 square meters show a significant difference in the area, location, and usage, it is unlawful to regard the sales price of the instant land as an example of similar sale and calculate the value of the instant land.

(3) Deductions of inheritance tax returns must be calculated on the basis of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes already reported.

B. Determination

First, we examine whether the notice of tax payment in this case is legitimate.

Article 3(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that an inheritor is liable to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree based on the property received or to be received by each person among inherited property. Thus, a duty payment notice having the effect of specifically establishing each person’s tax liability to co-inheritors is illegal to distinguish and specify the amount of tax to be paid individually to each co-inheritors, and to levy the total amount of inheritance tax

However, without stating the tax amount to be paid individually by the Plaintiff and AA, the notice of tax disposition of this case contains only one of the two joint taxpayers, the total amount of inheritance tax, and the basis for calculation, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not attach the specification of individual tax, as seen earlier, is identical. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that its defect in the method of imposing and notifying it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the part exceeding KRW 285,722,323 of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow