Seoul High Court 2012Na18016 (26 December 2012)

The deposit of the repayment of this case and the deposit of the repayment of this case included in the mixed deposit of this case shall be valid.

In a case where some of co-inheritors liable for joint and several tax payment of inheritance tax paid most of the inheritance tax, and thereafter a refund is incurred due to a reduction in some of the total amount of inheritance tax, whether to distribute the refund to anyone in any way can not be easily determined by the Defendant in charge of tax administration.

Article 487 (latter part)

2012Da93350 Refund

1. KimA 2. KimB 3. KimCC

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na18016 Decided September 26, 2012

June 26, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"Where a reimbursement obligor under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act is unable to identify an obligee without negligence" means where, objectively, an obligee or a reimbursement recipient exists, but the obligor is unable to identify who is the obligee even if he/she fulfills his/her fiduciary duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87MeuOOOO, Dec. 20, 198)." The court below determined as follows: (a) where some of co-inheritors, who are liable for joint and several liability for inheritance tax, have paid most inheritance tax on the grounds as indicated in its holding, and the amount of the refund is corrected by a reduction of the total amount of inheritance tax; and (b) where the refund is made by any means, the head of the tax office under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, who is in charge of tax administration, can not easily determine to whom the refund should be distributed, the deposit of this

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the repayment deposit, as alleged in the

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.