The deposit in the name of the deceased cannot be deemed as the property of the deceased, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Considering the various circumstances, it is difficult to view the deposit in the name of the deceased as the ownership of the deceased, and the disposition of this case taken by deeming the unregistered amount as the value of inherited property on the premise that the deposit in the name of the deceased is the ownership of the deceased.

Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap51333 Demanding revocation of inheritance tax

AA and one other

○ Head of tax office

November 7, 2014

January 9, 2015

1. On August 30, 201, the Defendant revoked each imposition of KRW 00,00,000,000,000 of inheritance tax imposed on Plaintiff A and KRW 00,000,00,000 of inheritance tax imposed on Plaintiff BB on Plaintiff BB on August 30, 201, and each imposition of KRW 00,00,000,000,000,00 of inheritance tax imposed on Plaintiff AA on December 13, 2013, as well as KRW 00,00,00,00,00 of inheritance tax imposed on Plaintiff BB.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) CCC (**.*.*.*..*........) established DD 000 CD c c c c c d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1000, hereinafter referred to as "F d d d d d d d d d d and F d d d d d d d d.

(2) The Deceased died on *.*. The deceased succeeded to the deceased’s property between the Plaintiff AA and its spouse, Plaintiff BB, and FF (*. 197*. *. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.) who was born, and the deceased’s spouse, and the GGG, HH and III (hereinafter “GG, etc.”).

(b)

(1) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, among the amounts withdrawn from the deposit account in the name of the pertinent SPC, notified the Defendant of the duty of assessment that the above amount should be included in the value of the inherited property on the ground that the Plaintiff’s heir including the Plaintiffs did not vindicate as stated in the “request for explanation of withdrawal deposit within 2 years prior to the commencement of the inheritance” (hereinafter “unexploited amount”) was omitted from the return of disposal property within 2 years, and that the amount of JJ’s withdrawal as stated in the “J embezzlement amount” was 00,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “JJ withdrawal amount”) as the “Omission of the report of damage claim against the JJ for the damage compensation claim against the Defendant.” Accordingly, on August 30, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of the duty of assessment.

(2) On January 9, 2013, the Defendant revised the inheritance tax amount to KRW 000,000,000 for the heir on the ground of an error in the amount of the spouse’s inheritance deduction amount (including additional taxes). The Defendant reflected the legal reserve of inheritance and the real inherited property and re-calculated the attached Form to the heir, and then the Plaintiff AA AA revised and notified the inheritance tax amount to KRW 00,000,000,000,000, and the inheritance tax amount to KRW 00,000,000,000, and the inheritance tax amount to KRW 00,000,00,00 for the inheritance tax to the Plaintiff BB, respectively (the tax amount to be corrected and notified for each heir is the same as the attached list).

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal on November 11, 201, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2013.

D. After that, on December 13, 2013, the Defendant: (a) separately imposed and notified the Plaintiff AAA of KRW 00,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff BB of KRW 000,000,000 on the part of the corrected tax amount on the ground that the Plaintiff did not specify the type of additional tax and the basis for calculating the amount of additional tax in imposing the tax on the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant again imposed and notified the Plaintiff BB of the amount of additional tax (hereinafter the “instant disposition”). On October 31, 2014, the Defendant continued in the instant case, “The Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff’s shares in the instant SPC; (c) the value of the instant CPC’s shares is USD 00,000,000, which are the subject of the instant disposition; and (d) thus, the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the instant disposition was based on the premise that the instant shares were inherited.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiffs' assertion that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 22, 23 and 28 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. As to the primary reason for the disposition

① The deceased’s own management of the property was without any mental problems until the death, and the change of the signatureer of the Plaintiff AA to the Plaintiff is based on the deceased’s will, and the Plaintiffs were not aware of the attribution of the property. Since the legal entity is a separate subject of rights and obligations independent from the representative, the deposit in the name of the instant SPC should be deemed as owned by a legal entity. Since the instant SPC has performed its own role as a long-term convenience, it cannot be denied the legal entity merely because the business was temporarily discontinued, the instant SPC cannot be viewed as a civil lawsuit against the Plaintiffs. ② Since the instant SPC’s deposit was disposed of by the deceased’s will, the deceased cannot claim damages against the Plaintiff AAA or JJ, ③ The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) cannot be considered as the deposit amount under the name of the deceased and the amount of the JPC’s own deposit under the name of the deceased.

B. As to the preliminary disposition

Considering the fact that the Defendant shall assess the value of shares based on the assets, etc. of the instant SPC pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same), the instant SPC does not possess any damage claim against Plaintiff AA and J, the shares of the instant SPC belong to III, etc., and there is no damage claim according to the civil and criminal judgment, the Plaintiffs did not inherit the shares of the instant SPC, and the value of the shares is not reasonable for the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise of inheritance of the shares of the instant SPC is unlawful.

C. As to the additional tax on improper non-declaration

Considering the fact that the Plaintiffs were unaware of the purpose of the instant SPC at the time of the deceased’s survival, the Plaintiffs did not specifically know the effect of signing transfer according to the instructions of the deceased, and that the Plaintiff did not know the effect of signing transfer; the use of the instant SPC and the existence of deposits after the deceased’s death; the details of withdrawing deposits in the name of the instant SPC were not revealed in the course of the tax investigation; the instant disposition was made in accordance with the presumption provisions under Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and the Plaintiffs did not have any deposit or management for the purpose of hiding the deceased’s property; and the Plaintiffs did not report without filing a report by using unjust methods, such as concealing or pretending the inherited property; thus, the penalty tax for non-

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties

“(1) The Deceased established at 00 KK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “KK”), a domestic transfer company, 000, a domestic company (hereinafter referred to as “LLLL”). The Deceased retired from DD on January 1, 1999 for the purpose of owning 198*. * 000’s “ship” (00,0000), * * * 0000’s vessel’s * 0000’s (00000). * 000. vessel’s * 0000’s (000. vessel) vessel’s * 000. 00, a vessel transport fee, etc. has been paid to the bank established at A, etc., through an account opened at LLL, etc. 2).

(b) Health, etc. of the Deceased;

(1) The Deceased was used as a brain stroke around 200.* around 200, and was sent to an emergency room in the hospital due to pulmonal difficulty*. The Deceased was discharged on the last day of 2001 *. The Deceased was under the treatment of urine disease, urine pressure, pulmonary pulmonary dye, pulmonary pulmonary dye, color dyecinosis, and low blood dyecinosis.* The Deceased discharged on the last day of 2001.

(2) The Deceased died at the age of 200*.0*.00, and after 2005, the details of hospitalization are as follows.

C. A change in the holder of the right to request the withdrawal of deposits, etc. in the name of the instant SPC (1) the deceased sold each of 00000 and 000 each around 200 in around 2001, and deposited the proceeds from sale in the bank account in the name of BB bank Aa branch bank in the name of the instant SPC.

(2) On December 14, 2001, the holder of the right to signature on the withdrawal of deposits in the name of the instant SPC (the holder of the right to represent the corporation in the withdrawal of deposits and the system in which the signature was registered in advance) was changed from the Deceased to the Plaintiff AA.

(3) III was appointed as administrator of inherited property from Seoul Family Court**.*. The Seoul Family Court appointed as the representative director of the instant SPC. Thereafter, the representative director of the instant SPC was registered as III (cccccccccccccccccc) on December 5, 201.

(d) The deposit withdrawal (1) of the bank account in BB bank Aa branch bank account, Plaintiff AAA and JJJ opened the deposit account (DDD:**********************************) in the name of the instant SPC at dd Bank (hereinafter referred to as “dd Bank”) aa dd Bank (hereinafter referred to as “dd Bank”).

(2) On May 2001, the Plaintiff AA and the JJ established the 'E'(hereinafter referred to as 'e', 'AA', '00 00 00 'E', 'A', '000 'J', 'J', 'J', 'eff', 'e', 'ddddd bank aa' on June 18, 2001, e-e andff 'e' (e:************ ******* 'd bank signature', ********) - the deposit account in the name of e-e andff at 00 points.

(3) From December 14, 2001 to March 17, 2005, J obtained Plaintiff AA’s signature in the application form for remittance and transferred USD 00,000,000 from the account under the name of DoDD A branch to KRW 00,000 ($000,0000,000) as the total amount of the securities purchase price, USD 00,000 ($ 00,000 in the name of DodD bank, KRW 00,000 in the name of DodD bank, USD 00,000 in the total of 0,000 ($ 00,000 in the name of Dod DD bank, KRW 00,00 in each account, 00 in the name of DoF bank, KRW 00,000 in the name of DoF bank and KRW 000,000 in each account.

(4) In addition, the JJ, upon the signature of the Plaintiff AA, remitted USD 00,000,000 in total, from 3 i aaaaaa and 00 points in the name of e and fff in the account of e and fff, to 3 iaa aa and 00 points in the name of e and fff, and from 3 i aa a00 points in the name of FFF to 3 iaa aa and 00 points in the name of e and fff.

The ○○ LLL’s financial management was directly conducted by the Deceased, and the Deceased did not take charge of the financial management of those suspected of having been entrusted to the Deceased. The LLL was not aware of the closure of the business around 200*.

○ The vessels belonging to KK, a shipping company of 00 shipping companies operated by the Deceased, are the owner of the instant SPC on documents, which are substantially owned by the Deceased.

○ 망인은 1990년대 후반부터 선박운송규제가 많아지고, 사업이 힘들어 선박을 처분하여 사업규모를 줄여왔는데, 본인이 회사를 그만둔 뒤 JJJ이 2001. 4.경 연락을 해서 000 매각을 처리해 준 사실이 있다. 당시 망인이 일을 시킨 것으로 생각하였으나, 나중에 망인이 이미 뇌경색으로 쓰러진 뒤에 JJJ이 독자적으로 일을 준 것을 알고 깜짝 놀랐다.

○ FFF is 000 FF and DD is each line line line of 0000. At the time of purchasing one boat, it was entirely conducted in accordance with the instructions of the deceased to newly create and use the Pucom at the time of purchasing one boat.

○○ FFF and DD’s deposits are owned by the Deceased, and the Deceased is not a person to whom the JJ has donated property exceeding a billion won to the J. The Deceased is a person whose life is making it difficult for the Deceased to use a small amount of money without his/her permission.

(5) If the details of withdrawal and remittance are arranged up to 200**.**. The details of withdrawal and remittance are as shown in the annexed sheet. The withdrawn money was deposited in 8 places, including 0000 points of bank 0000 or used for purchase of 00 securities, etc. In addition, the Defendant specified the amount of withdrawal within 2 years prior to the commencement of the inheritance of Plaintiff AA (hereinafter referred to as the “request for explanation of withdrawal within 2 years prior to the commencement of the inheritance”), USD 148,170,274 among the respective withdrawns, USD 140,000,000 among the unregistered amounts, USD 0,000,000 among the JJ amount, and USD 0,000,000 (attached Form J J amount).

(6) Meanwhile, from the deposit account in the name of the instant SPC, 200*.*. Ship Communications Cost, 200*.*.*. There is no amount of remittance related to the marine transportation since the disbursement of the seafarer’s expenses.

(e) Statements of related persons;

(1) The jj, which was an employee of the LLLLL, stated in the Seoul Regional Tax Office on July 29, 201 as follows:

(2) On August 19, 2008, b bank Aa branch and sub-branch 000 stated the following at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office:

"The plaintiff AA and JJ around February 2001, when the deceased was faced with mixed consciousness due to brain death and dementia, etc., they intended to change the deposit signature holder of each BB Bank Aa branch account in the name of the SPC from the deceased to AAAA and withdraw the deposit at will and acquire it by deceit. On April 2001, the deceased knew that the deceased was in a state where he could not make a normal decision due to the above disease, and then forged a letter of resignation in the name of the deceased at KRW 0000,000 (the U.S. company acting as an agent for the registration of Hhhhh Hhhh company) and submitted a document of 00.0,000,000,0000, 200,0000, 200,0000, 200,0000, 200,000,000, 21, 201, 201.

○ The Deceased dealt with deposits in the name of the instant SPC upon the request of the deceased on a wire. The principal deposit is the sale price of the vessel and the charterage of the vessel.

The plaintiff AA did not inform the deceased of the moving hospital, and made a sense that the deceased would be bullying. The plaintiff AA directly visited the BB bank Aa branch and claimed the payment of the deposit.

(f) Criminal trials, etc.

(1) Plaintiff AA and JJ were acquitted on the ground that it was charged with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (201***, 1111) in the Seoul Central District Court (2011**, 1111) as follows, but it is difficult for the deceased to have forged the signature of the document of resignation in the name of the deceased used for the change of the name of the person who has the right to receive deposit or could not make a normal decision at the time." Plaintiff AA and JJ were acquitted on the ground that it was found that the signature was forged or was in a situation in which the deceased could not make a normal decision at the time. Plaintiff AA and JJ received the decision of dismissal of the prosecutor from the Seoul High Court (2012No***) on October 11, 2013, and currently in the Supreme Court (2013Do*****111).

(2) On January 1, 2011, Plaintiff A and JJ against the Seoul Central District Court (2011*********) filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment against Plaintiff A and the JJ on the ground that “the person holding the right to signature the deceased’s deposit withdrawal signature was forged due to the defluence of the deceased from the deceased to Plaintiff AAA, and then withdrawal, remittance, embezzlement, and breach of trust.” However, the judgment was dismissed by the above court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(3) Plaintiff AA asserted in each of the above lawsuits that “AA signed a document of withdrawal from the fund without ascertaining detailed matters at the request of the JJ, which is conducted by the deceased as the main owner of the electric utility, as the owner of the electric utility,. The Deceased managed and disposed of the assets at his/her own will before his/her death.” [Grounds for Recognition] is not disputed, Party A’s statements, Party A’s Evidence Nos. 6 through 12, 14 through 18 (including the serial number), Party B’s Evidence Nos. 19, 24 through 27 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

5. Determination

A. As to the primary reason for the disposition

(1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment. Article 14(2) of the same Act provides that "The provisions on the calculation of tax base in the tax law concerning income, profit, property, act or transaction shall be applied according to the name or form of

The substance over form principle is a practical principle for realizing the principle of equality, which is the fundamental principle under the Constitution. In a case where unreasonable form or appearance that differs from the substance of taxation requirements is taken for the purpose of evading tax burden, the main purpose of this principle is to regulate unfair acts of tax avoidance and to enhance equity in taxation by imposing tax on a place with the capacity to pay taxes, regardless of its form or appearance. This does not conflict with the basic principle of tax law, but is complementary and indivisible with the principle of no taxation without law in order to prevent predictability and legal stability in applying various changes in economic living relations with various tax laws to the extent that it does not undermine predictability and legal stability. The substance substance principle of substantial taxation, which is stipulated in Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, should be deemed as a person liable for tax evasion and management of shares, and thus, should be deemed as a person liable for tax evasion and management of shares, and thus, should be deemed as falling under Article 27(1) of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act, and thus, should be deemed as falling under the name of the person liable for tax evasion and management.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view the instant SPC’s deposit in the name of the deceased as the ownership of the deceased, and the instant disposition taken by deeming the unregistered amount and the JJ withdrawal amount as the value of inherited property on the premise that the deposit in the name of the instant SPC was owned by the deceased. The instant disposition was unlawful.

(A) In relation to the denial of legal personality: SPC established without human and material capital is deemed to have separate legal personality from its shareholders in principle (see current tax laws and regulations prohibiting the establishment of SPC, or denying its substance solely on the ground that there is no separate human and material capital on the part of SPC established for investment purposes. Rather, Articles 17(1) and 18(1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act provide for the requirement that the retained earnings of SPC established in the tax have been deemed to have been distributed to the relevant SPC shareholders on the premise that SPC’s substance is recognized. Since SPC is generally established without human and material capital to achieve a temporary purpose, it is generally deemed that it has a minimum amount of investment property within the scope required by the law of the place of establishment to achieve its establishment purpose, or that it is difficult to recognize SPC’s independent legal personality as an evasion of legal personality or for the sake of equity solely on the ground that SPC’s employee who has established SPC operates or controls it concurrently with its executives and employees, etc. It goes against the principle of trust and good faith.

(B) With respect to convenience: countries based on taxation, labor, shipping policies, etc., for convenience;

The purpose of avoiding various regulations is to establish a company in the form of a country where regulations were made, and then to vest the ownership of the ship in the name of the company, and to maintain the nationality of the country. However, the so-called "convenition" system, which establishes an individual or corporation in the name of the country where the shipowner belongs or a country where the ship is actually located, and displays the national flag of the country in its name, cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2324, Apr. 12, 1994): Provided, That the purpose of achieving the illegal purpose of evading obligations beyond the permissible limit of convenience is not permissible under the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu678, Sept. 12, 1989).

However, when the deceased, while operating the LLL in the Republic of Korea, established and used the instant SPC for the unique purpose of convenience, from around 19* in 19*, it cannot be deemed that the objective of tax avoidance exists only with convenience itself, and only the fact that the name of the holder of the right to signature on the deposit in the name of the instant SPC has changed to the name of the Plaintiff AAA, it cannot be deemed that the purpose of tax avoidance exists solely on the ground that the name of the holder of the right to signature on the deposit in the name of the instant SPC has changed to the name of the Plaintiff AAA., the instant SPC filed a civil suit against Plaintiff AA and JJ, and the judgment was rendered on the merits, and the relevant criminal judgment specified the instant SPC as the victim, it cannot be denied legal personality by deeming the instant

Article 15(1)1 and (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) stipulate that the heir shall be presumed to have inherited if the purpose of the provision is objectively unclear, such as that the decedent’s withdrawal of cash, etc. within two years before the date the inheritance commences, and shall be included in the taxable value of inheritance. This is a provision converting the burden of proof to prevent unfair reduction of inheritance tax by giving cash donation or inheritance to the heir who is not easy to capture taxable data (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1676, Jun. 23, 200). However, in order to apply such presumption provision on inherited property, it should be presumed that the deposit in the name of the deceased was actually attributed to the deceased at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Accordingly, the tax authority first bears the burden of proving that the deposit in the name of the deceased was owned by the deceased, and the Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have the burden of proving that the deposit in the name of the deceased was transferred under the name of the deceased.

(d)In relation to the purpose of tax evasion: A deposit made in another person's bank account and used the borrowed account; however, it is not readily concluded that a specific act is committed regardless of the motive, circumstance, etc. of the act or active income concealment. In addition to a tax return on the object of taxation- a false entry in the account book, repeated exchange of means of payment, such as checks, and other concealments are included, or deposit in the borrowed account is made in several locations or in sequence, or deposit in another borrowed account is repeated, or deposit in another borrowed account is made repeatedly or remarkably difficult to collect taxes in addition to circumstances where active concealment is expressed due to the special relation with the nominal owner even once (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14597, Mar. 28, 2013).

However, Plaintiff AA submitted personal information at the time of opening a foreign financial account and changing the name of the signatory right to withdrawal from a deposit, and did not seem to have used the method of repeating or distributing the account transfer in order to conceal the person to whom the ownership belongs. The deceased was used in around 200* and continued to exist until 200*, and the deposit account in the name of the instant SPC was used for foreign exchange investment outside the ship transport business. As the deceased was also used for the purpose of foreign exchange investment, it was necessary for the deceased AAA to change the signature right to withdrawal from a deposit in the name of the spouse. Even if the owned ship was sold, the purpose of the instant SPC cannot be limited to the possession of the ship, and even if it was possible to re-purchase the ship after investing the deposit in financial assets, there is no evidence or circumstance that Plaintiff AA was an occupational owner, and the deposit account in the name of the instant SPC was established for the purpose of tax avoidance, and it cannot be deemed that the bank was established in the domestic bank through the tax evasion purpose of the instant bank.

(e) Other: calculated on the basis of the retained earnings of the instant SPC under Article 17 of the International Tax Adjustment Act.

It is difficult to deny the substance of the instant SPC because it constitutes the use of, profit from, and disposal of the property of the instant SPC even if the deposit in the name of the Plaintiff was used for a term deposit, etc., in view of the following: (a) if the deposit in the name of the instant SPC was used for private purposes, it constitutes embezzlement; (b) unjust enrichment or tort should be returned to the instant SPC; (c) on the premise of this, third party representative director of the instant SPC claims restitution of unjust enrichment or criminal complaint against the Plaintiffs; (d) it is possible to impose taxation on the income of the instant SPC; and (b) the instant SPC can exercise its right to deposit; and (c) it was determined on the premise of the legal personality of the instant SPC in the relevant litigation; and (b) it constitutes a change in the ownership of the instant SPC; and (e) its profit, etc. constitutes the ownership of the instant SPC; and (e) if it was used for a private purpose, it should be proved that the tax authority had the burden of proof at the time of inheritance and the inheritance.

(2) The existence of the inherited property should be proved by the defendant, even if you transfer the instant case to 00 banks or use it for the purchase of securities, and there is a possibility that the U.S.'s failure to prove it could not be evaluated, and that the U.S. amount of the U.S. withdrawal and the JJ were legally disposed of by the deceased. In light of the following factors: (a) No. 3 has been recognized in the civil and criminal litigation against the plaintiff AA and JJ as the administrator; (b) the ownership of the instant SPC was not clearly identified; (c) the ownership of the instant SPC was registered as the representative director; (d) the ownership of the instant SPC was transferred to the deceased at the time of his death; and (e) the ownership of the instant SPC was transferred to 00 banks or used for the purchase of securities; and (e) the amount of the U.S. withdrawal and the KJ withdrawal are not recognized as being legally disposed of by the deceased; and (e) there is a lack to recognize the embezzlement solely based on the content of the newspaper (as evidence No. 20).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the deposit in the name of the deceased is the property of the deceased or the share of the PC in the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have been inherited, the disposition of the instant case is unlawful without further review.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, since the claim of this case is well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Doing the presiding judge

Judges Kim Jong-won

Judges Domination