Suwon District Court 2009Guhap9766 ( October 10, 2010)

Early High Court Decision 2008J 4144 (Law No. 22, 2009)

Inheritance obligations to be deducted from the value of inherited property;

The burden of proof of the existence of inheritance obligation is against the person liable to pay the tax, and the plaintiff claims that there is the obligation to return the deposit, but it is difficult to deem that there is the inheritance obligation because it is a joint rental business operator of the building between the decedent and

2010Nu21107 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

Doz. Doz.

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap9766 Decided June 10, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 583,264,802 against the plaintiff on September 17, 2008.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the instant appellate trial, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the obligation to refund the security deposit to the headB of KRW 500 million, and (b) the obligation to provide loans to 200 million to CC are included in the inheritance obligation; (c) the inheritance tax is calculated and imposed without deducting the amount of inherited property; and (d) the instant disposition imposing the inheritance tax was unlawful. However, even with respect to all evidence submitted during the instant appellate proceedings, it is insufficient to accept

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.