Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap53014 (2010.04.02)

early 209west2548 (Law No. 91, 2009)

Even if there are differences between the floor and the Dong, the price of the comparable sales apartment can be seen as the market price.

The comparative apartment can be recognized as the market price because the number of floors is different, the area, structure, and use are the same, the standard market price is more than the transaction apartment, etc., and the comparative apartment can not be said to affect the market price that the comparative apartment was engaged in the balcony expansion construction.

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

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition and collection of KRW 152,568,150 (including additional tax) of the inheritance tax rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2009 shall be revoked (the other part shall be deemed to be due to mistake and shall be so decided as above).

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

This Court's judgment is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that it is added or changed below.

The portion from the 2nd judgment of the first instance court to the 3 second second judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

The amount of 152,02,00 won of deposit omitted at the time of inheritance tax shall be included in the value of inherited property and the total amount of 3,627,197,489 won shall be calculated as 473,90,972 won of the heir (including the plaintiff and three other children) of the above gamblingA including the plaintiff, and the total amount of 473,90,972 won shall be notified additionally to the plaintiff. The amount of 152,568,158 won (additional tax) calculated by subtracting the above voluntary payment tax and annual payment tax. The amount of 57,182,545 won according to the plaintiff's share of inheritance among these amounts of 157,182,545 won shall be the total amount of 57,185 won according to the plaintiff's share of inheritance, and the list of co-inheritors and co-inheritors liable to pay the total amount of 3,627,197,489 won shall be determined as the disposition of inheritance tax (the plaintiff's share of inheritance.).

No 2, 5th of the first instance court ruling, 6th of the first instance court ruling, for the purpose of reporting tax offices to the public (referring to tax office).

6.6. 6. 11. 2006. 6. 11. 2006. 6. 6. 2006. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 206. 6. 6.

The following shall be added from 6th below the first instance judgment to 3th below:

갑 제5, 6호증의 각 기재에 따르면, 이 사건 ■■아파트와 전용면적이나 층수, 기 준시가가 같은 위 ■■아파트 7동 803호가 2006. 1. 27. 매매대금 1,800,000,000원에 거래된 사실이 있음을 알 수 있고, 원고는 이 매매가격을 시가로 적용하여야 한다고 주장하나, 아파트의 내의 위치(동수), 상속개시일에 대한 매매일자의 근접 정도, 비슷한 층수의 아파트에 대한 다른 매매사례 등에 비추어 보아 이 사건 ■■아파트와 같은 동 에 있으면서 1층 밖에 차이가 나지 않는 이 사건 비교대상 ■■아파트가 위 ■■아파트 7동 803호보다 이 사건 ■■아파트와 면적 ・ 용도 ・ 구조 등이 더 통일 ・ 유사하고 그 매매가액도 더 시가에 가깝다고 판단되므로, 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다

The following shall be added on October 11, 2006, the first seven first line of the lst instance judgment, the second line of June 3, 2006, and the third line of the third line:

원고는, 비교대상 ●●아파트보다 상속개시일에 더 근접한 2006. 4. 17. 체결된 위 ●●아파트 104동 602호의 매매가격인 860,000,000원을 이 사건 ■■아파트의 시가로 적용하여야 한다고 주장하나, 위 ●●아파트 104동 602호는 매매가격에 차이를 생기게 할 정도로 이 사건 ●●아파트의 층수(17층)와 현저히 차이가 있고, 오히려 앞서 본 10층 이상에 위치한 아파트 호수들의 매매사례가액에 비추어 보아 11층에 위치한 비교대상 ●●아파트가 이 사건 ■■아파트와 면적 ・ 용도 ・ 구조 등이 더 동일 ・ 유사하고 그 매매가액도 더 시가에 가깝다고 판단되므로, 원고의 위 주장 역시 받아들일 수 없다

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance must dismiss the plaintiff's claim. This conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to the lack of grounds.