2012west0456

Since the purchase price of real estate in title trust cannot be deducted from the inheritance tax base, this disposition is legitimate.

The disposition of this case, based on the premise that the sale price was used for the purchase of the real estate in this case, was legitimate, on the premise that it cannot be deducted from the inheritance tax base.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap60514

O KimO

OOtax secretary;

April 17, 2014

May 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant imposed an inheritance tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on October 11, 2011.

The part exceeding 000 won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff died of his father KimO (hereinafter “the deceased”).

Property is inherited, and on July 25, 2010, the value of the inherited property is KRW 000,000, the tax base.

The amount of tax paid was 000 won, which was declared as 000 won.

B. After that, the Defendant, as the inheritor of the Deceased, is the Plaintiff and Nonparty OO, Kim K, KimK, KimAA, and KimB.

As a result of the inheritance tax investigation conducted on June 18, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Dong GK on the same day.

The acquisition fund of the OO-dong 245-1 998 square meters and the acquisition fund of the commercial building on the ground thereof, which is acquired by O-si.

000 won and 1/2 shares each of January 15, 2004 acquired by the plaintiff and KimK.

O-dong 762-10 Large 612.9m2 and its ground commercial buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "site and its ground buildings") are combined.

The plaintiff and Kim KK shall be the predecessor of the deceased's property of KRW 000 as the acquisition fund of the real property of this case

The court determined that the deceased was donated from the commencement date of the deceased’s inheritance and that the deceased’s deposit fraternity was within two years from the deceased’

Of the money withdrawn from the account, the amount for which the place of use is unclear is KRW 000,00, and the Plaintiff, Kim KK, and the Deceased.

the deceased’s heir, the wife of the deceased, donated 000 won in cash from the deceased.

Accordingly, the Defendant determined that the land and commercial buildings in the above 00 :00 :00 :

The net of 000 won out of the aggregate of the acquisition funds of the real estate of this case and the amount recognized as cash donation

(1) A person becomes aware of the value of prior donation to the plaintiff, Kim KK and GoO, and the above 000

on October 11, 201, the Board determined and notified 000 won of inheritance tax inherited on January 5, 201 to the Plaintiff, the representative heir of the deceased, as the value of inherited property, which was included in the taxable value of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “the value of inherited property”).

“Disposition of this case”, while 00 years old, the portion of the donation made on June 18, 2002 to the Plaintiff and KimK.

The gift tax amount of 000 won was determined and notified.

C. On November 28, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 28, 201.

The Tax Tribunal shall provide the prior gift property value related to the acquisition of the real property of this case.

It is reasonable to consider 000 won, not 000 won, and out of the amount of cash donation.

000 won is deemed as having been withdrawn from an account opened in the name of the Deceased for convenience.

on July 15, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of this case by the Defendant on July 15, 2013

from 000 won (00 won for the acquisition of the real property of this case, and 000 won for cash donation)

the tax base and tax amount to be deducted shall be corrected, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed.

The decision was made.

D. The Defendant’s gift tax base against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013 according to the aforementioned decision by the Tax Tribunal.

Gift by deducting 000 won in aggregate of 000 won in real estate and 000 won in deposit;

The amount of tax paid in annual installments in 2014, and the amount of gift tax paid in annual installments in 2000.

At the same time, the inheritance tax was corrected by deducting the above 000 won from the inheritance tax base of the plaintiff, GoOO, Kim KK, KimA, and KimB, who is the heir of the deceased.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed the instant lawsuit on October 11, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the funds to acquire the instant real property, Seoul 00-Gu 00 00 Do 45-16 Do 101.6 Mam2, 1000

000 won for the price received by transferring the second floor housing building (hereinafter referred to as the "house of this case") on the ground;

This includes this, and the instant house is a house owned by the Plaintiff. In other words, the Plaintiff had been engaged in the deceased’s business from the time of the purchase of the instant house around 1988 to the time of the purchase of the Plaintiff’s business, and the Deceased partly attempted to purchase the said house in return for the deceased’s business. Since then, the Plaintiff sold the instant house on behalf of the Deceased and cancelled the obligation and obligation by paying some of the money assisted by the Deceased. It was true that the purchase price of the instant house was paid to the Deceased, and that it was used by the Deceased for the purchase of the beneficiary certificates, but it is merely a mere lending or consignment relationship. Accordingly, from the acquisition fund of the instant real estate, the said KRW 000 out of the acquisition fund of the instant real estate was the amount verified as the source of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and it is not the amount of prior donation received from the Deceased, which should be deducted from the inheritance tax base. Nevertheless, the Defendant was unlawful since

B. Defendant’s assertion

The housing of this case is not owned by the plaintiff, but owned by the deceased and ordered by the deceased to name the plaintiff.

the commercial building of this case, the sales price of the housing of this case is nothing more than that of the trust.

Even if it was used for purchase, the purchase fund still was donated to the Plaintiff by the Deceased.

must be viewed.

(c) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

D. Determination

The key issue of this case is whether the instant house is owned by the Plaintiff or owned by the Deceased.

In addition, the issue is whether the title trust was held or not, and this issue is examined;

For the following reasons, the instant house is a house owned by the deceased, and the title trust is held by the plaintiff.

It is judged that it had been in fact.

The instant real estate sales contract was concluded on December 8, 2003, and the purchase price was 2.98 billion won.

The contract deposit amount of KRW 000,000 is the contract date, the intermediate payment of KRW 500,000 on December 17, 2003;

The remainder 2.2 billion won was agreed to be paid on January 15, 2004. Meanwhile, on February 13, 2003, the Plaintiff sold the instant housing to the Non-Party GangnamO for KRW 000, and the down payment of KRW 000 among them was made.

A. On March 10, 2003, the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million was paid on the contractual day, and the remainder of KRW 300 million was paid on April 21, 2003 of the same year. At the time of payment of the remainder, the Plaintiff and KRW 40 million were deducted and actually paid KRW 230,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2003 pursuant to the above sales contract. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 to the Deceased on the same day. The Deceased purchased beneficiary certificates from the O bank on the same day, and the Deceased purchased additional beneficiary certificates from the O bank on April 21, 2003, KRW 30,000,000,000 paid KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff on April 265, 200, which was paid by the KO bank on the same day, and the Plaintiff purchased additional beneficiary certificates from the K bank account on the same day.

12. On September, 12. The fact that the gold source transferred or withdrawn from the account was used as the purchase price of the real estate of this case is recognized by adding up the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9 to the facts and evidence of recognition and the fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the gold source used as the purchase price of the real estate of this case. Thus, it is more reasonable to deem that the housing of this case was owned by the plaintiff and used as the purchase price of another person's beneficiary certificates and operated the beneficiary certificates for a certain period of time in light of the empirical rule to sell the housing of this case, even though it was owned by the plaintiff of this case.

In addition, according to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 11, and Eul evidence No. 5, the deceased was in the house of this case.

purchase of a house located in the OOO-dong 45-17 adjoining Seoul OOO-dong and in fact together with his family.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not actually resided in the house of this case.

Housing has been leased to another person (the plaintiff also recognizes that it has been leased to another person).

The deceased did not actually have resided in the house, and the deceased OOO-gu Seoul OO-dong

45-17 The fact that a person purchased a house and actually resided therein is recognized by him.

(A) If so, the management of the instant house is carried out by the Deceased, not by the Plaintiff.

I seem to have existed.

The Plaintiff had been engaged in funeral services for the Deceased in connection with the process of purchasing the instant house.

For this reason, the Deceased partly aided the purchase of the instant house, and several years after purchasing the instant house.

to the effect that all the amounts were paid, but such amounts were paid between the Plaintiff and the Deceased.

There is no evidence to support the original transaction.

Therefore, the housing of this case is not owned by the plaintiff, but owned by the deceased, and is title trust to the plaintiff.

held that the sale price was used in the purchase of the real property of this case, and that the sale price was

The instant disposition taken on the premise that such disposition cannot be deducted from the inheritance tax base.

It will be lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.