Early High Court Decision 2008Gu3088 (No. 30, 2009)

Whether it constitutes an inheritance obligation subject to mutual aid

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount equivalent to his share in the land expropriation compensation has been lent to the decedent.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 35,311,431 on February 4, 2008 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s right HH (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 14, 2006. On June 13, 2007, the Plaintiff, the inheritor of the deceased, declared inheritance tax by deducting KRW 233,00,00 from the value of inherited property on the ground that the deceased was a debt borrowed from KimA and KimB, the Plaintiff’s birth.

B. On February 4, 2008, the Defendant imposed inheritance tax of KRW 61,989,760 on the Plaintiff on the ground that objective evidence regarding the claim obligation of this case is insufficient and it cannot be recognized as the deceased’s obligation. On February 4, 2008, the Defendant imposed inheritance tax of KRW 61,989,760 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the actual amount is reduced by KRW 26,678,329, as seen below in subparagraph (e), and there remains KRW 35,311,431.

C. On April 21, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office on the ground that the instant disposition of taxation, which did not recognize the instant alleged obligation as the obligation, was unlawful, but the Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office dismissed the objection on June 4, 2008.

D. Accordingly, on September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 30, 2009, the Tax Tribunal deducted KRW 77,666,666 (the amount corresponding to the claim of this case and the amount deemed to be leased by KimB to the Deceased) from the value of inherited property, and corrected the tax base and tax amount, and decided that the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

E. On July 10, 2009, according to the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant issued a correction notice stating that the amount of tax determined in the instant disposition against the Plaintiff shall be subtracted from 26,678,329 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff primarily, while the plaintiff, KimA, and KimB inherited the property from the deceased EE, the plaintiff succeeded to the property from the mother, and the plaintiff, KimA and KimB agreed on the division of inherited property. Since KimA and KimB received KRW 233,309,00,000 from the land expropriation compensation of this case and then lent KRW 233,00,00,00 to the deceased, the entire claim of this case should be deducted from the inherited property. According to the evidence No. 8, the land expropriation compensation of this case was 233,309,000,000, but there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the above land expropriation compensation of this case was 1,289,00,000 won, the plaintiff's assertion that the above land expropriation compensation of this case was 233,309,000,000 won, and there was no reason to acknowledge it between the plaintiff and the 3000,000,000 evidence of Kim evidence No. 13B.

B. The plaintiff asserts that even if the plaintiff, KimA, and KimB (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") succeeded to the land of this case and owned 1/3 shares, the deceased borrowed 233,00,000,000 won from the land expropriation compensation of this case from the plaintiff et al., as well as the amount corresponding to the share of KimB (=23,00,000,000 -7,66666), the plaintiff et al. should also be deducted from the value of inherited property.

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent money equivalent to his share to the deceased during the land expropriation compensation of this case, and with respect to the fact that KimA lent money equivalent to his share to the deceased, it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the entries of Nos. 9 through 11 and 14 and the testimony of the witness KimCC, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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