Seocho 208west 1683 ( December 30, 2008)

Whether it is an inheritance obligation actually assumed by an ancestor

It is insufficient to recognize the existence of an inheritance obligation in view of the following: (a) the heir is unable to clearly prove the existence of the obligation owed by the decedent; (b) the decedent held cash of 100 million won; and (c) the heir had re-refluent capacity to donate real estate

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

○ Kim

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claims are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

The imposition of each inheritance tax by the director of the tax office of Seodaemun on February 4, 2008 against the plaintiffs, such as attached Form 2, and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 28,798,250 (including additional tax) by the director of the tax office on February 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The deceased KimA married with the YangCC in around 194 and registered as a natural parent who has produced the plaintiffs and Kim HH from around 1954, and divorced with the YangCC on February 1984, and died on April 14, 2003 (the deceased KimD was deceased on November 1993).

B. On April 14, 2003, the Plaintiffs reported the inheritance tax to the Defendant, as shown in the corresponding column of “Attachment 1 Report List of Inheritance Tax Return (hereinafter “Attachment 1 Report”).

C. On March 21, 2003, the director of the tax office of Seodaemun-gu denied loans worth KRW 1,405,940,000 in excess of the credit amount and deducted the credit amount from the credit amount on March 21, 2003, and then added the above sum to the inheritance tax value on the ground that he donated KRW 35,00,000 in cash on the same day to leM, and then, he added the above sum to the inheritance tax value on the ground that he denied loans worth KRW 1,405,940,00 in excess of KRW 1,5,940,00 in accordance with the attached Table 1 list, and subsequently corrected the inheritance tax base of the Plaintiffs on March 25, 200, including additional taxes on KRW 1,400 in accordance with the corresponding Table, KRW 301,500 in accordance with the attached Table 40,701,619,709,701,61,709,4000,7.1,7000.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on November 24, 1995, the head of Simsan Tax Office confirmed that the deceased KimB donated a house of 405-6, 126 square meters on the ground of △△△△-dong 405-6, 10, 126 square meters to the Plaintiff KimB, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff KimB of KRW 28,798,250 (including additional tax) of gift tax on February 1, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing gift tax”).

E. On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal revoked the portion exceeding KRW 113,569,93 out of KRW 130,60,857 of the tax amount due to failure to file a return on the above inheritance, on the ground that the defendant's office of Seodaemun District Tax Tribunal considered the value of donated property as the value of donated property under the above paragraph (c) and reported it to be included in the value of inherited property (i) land, land, etc., and (ii) cash was illegal as it was originally reported by the plaintiffs including the value of inherited property at the time of filing a return on the inheritance tax or the amount of inherited property before the commencement of the inheritance, and thus, it was unlawful to impose penalty tax in bad faith in filing a return on the above inheritance tax (hereinafter referred to as "the imposition of inheritance tax of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and Category B 1, 2, and 3

2. Referral and Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The imposition of inheritance tax and gift tax in this case shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(i)Imposition of inheritance tax;

(a)The net KimA borrowed KRW 1,405,940,00 from Plaintiff KimB from 1994 to 2000, the amount of such debt shall be deducted from the value of the inherited property as an inheritance obligation.

(B) The instant land, etc. (2) is the property acquired by Western in the name of the deceased KimA and its actual owner is the GG and is not the property donated from the deceased KimA to the G, and should be excluded from the inheritance tax assessment.

(C) The instant land (1) is not donated property, since the deceased KimA transferred its ownership to bothCC as a property division or compensation for damages arising from divorce, and is not a donated property, it should be excluded from inheritance tax assessment.

(d)SG is a de facto spouse of the deceased KimA, so the spouse shall be entitled to deduction from the value of the inherited property;

(ii)Gift tax imposition;

KimB paid a reasonable price to the deceased KimA, ④ purchased the land, etc., and not donated the said real estate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i)The deceased KimA, in collusion with KimN, TraO, etc. from around 1982, took place as a Do Governor, and collected the property of KRW KRW 100 million from many women who believe that the deceased KimN, laO, etc. raised a flag through the deceased KimA, built a building depending on the lusities and lusities, or a building depending on the lusities and lusities, or that the lusities and lusities of the real estate are good and good and good, and thus, they collected the property of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(2)The deceased KimA owned 14 lots of land, including land and land, and 14 lots of land located in ○○ City, 00 ○○ city, and 3 lots of land located in ○○○ city, and, in addition, held several hundred million won in the bank account and the new bank account, directly managed the seal impressions or passbooks of the principal at the time of his death.

(3) The deceased KimA donated or trusted to Kim H the real estate owned by his children or spouse before his birth, such as donation or title trust of the real estate owned by △△△△△-dong 405-7 real estate to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△-dong 378-228 land and housing to KimF. On November 24, 1995, the plaintiff KimB made a donation or title trust of the real estate owned by his children or spouse.

(4) Upon filing the instant inheritance tax return, the Plaintiff did not have a certificate of borrowing as supporting the net KimA’s debt to the said Plaintiff, and accordingly, submitted the account on which the net KimA voluntarily entered and withdrawn on the Plaintiff’s deposit account, details of withdrawal of deposits in the said Plaintiff’s deposit account, details of check issuance, etc., and Plaintiff KimB was not able to submit data on the price paid to the net KimA as the twoCC received each transfer of ownership on the land, etc. (2) as to the land, etc. (1) as the twoCC received each transfer of ownership registration on the land,

[Reasons for Recognition] The evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 8 to 11, Eul's evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Determination of the plaintiff's assertions described in paragraph (1)

(A) According to Articles 14(4) and 19(1) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18108, Sep. 29, 2003; hereinafter the same), the amount of debts owed by an ancestor as of the commencement date of inheritance shall be deducted from the value of inherited property; however, the amount of debts deducted from the value of inherited property shall be limited to those proved by a contract for debt burden, a creditor's certificate, a document evidencing the establishment of collateral and the payment of interest, etc.; in principle, if a person with a domestic domicile dies, the amount actually inherited by a spouse shall be deducted from the value of inherited property, and if the spouse has no actual amount of inheritance or the amount of inheritance is less than 500,000,000 won, it shall not constitute de facto a spouse having a de facto marital relationship under the law.

(B) According to the above facts, the Plaintiffs did not prove the existence of the obligation to borrow KRW 1,405,940,000 against Plaintiff KimB by means of a debt-sharing contract, confirmation document, and evidence of the establishment of collateral and payment of interest, and did not prove the existence of the obligation to borrow KRW 1,405,940,000 against Plaintiff KimB of the deceased KimB at the time of the death of the deceased KimA, as well as the fact that the deceased KimA was holding the cash of KRW 1,40,000 at the time of the death, and that there was sufficient re-refilled to the heir before the death, and that the check, etc. was withdrawn from the account of Plaintiff KimB, but it was not confirmed whether the money was paid to the deceased KimB. In light of the above facts, the materials submitted by the Plaintiffs alone are insufficient to recognize the existence of the obligation to borrow KRW 1,405,940

(c)In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that SeogG was donated to the deceased KimA with land and bothCC, and there is no other evidence to deem that Seog and YangCC received the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above real estate due to the cancellation of title trust, division of property, compensation for damages, etc., and that Seog was de facto marital relationship with the deceased KimA.

(d)Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the assertion in paragraph (1) (2) of the plaintiff KimB

According to Article 44(1) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of the property transferred to a lineal ascendant or descendant shall be presumed to have been donated to a lineal ascendant or descendant at the time when the transferor transfers the property concerned: Provided, That if it is evident that the transferor has received compensation and transferred it, it shall not be presumed to have been donated. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff KimB shall be presumed to have received the registration of transfer of the property from the deceased KimA on November 24, 1995, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above presumption. Thus, the plaintiff KimB's assertion on this part

3.In conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.