Cho-2015-China-4702 ( December 02, 2015)

The disposition that denied the estimated inherited property reported by the Plaintiff and imposed the inheritance tax by adding the financial property of the inheritee was not erroneous.

A significant portion of the warehouse construction cost is appropriated for a loan under the name of the inheritee, and the authentication document presented by the claimant is unclear whether it is authentic or not, and the authentication document is not submitted with objective evidentiary documents on the amount of the authentication debt, etc., and it is deemed that there is no presumed inherited property of the inheritee, and the inheritance tax disposition is legitimate.

Article 7 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

District Court 2015Guhap7236

Kim 00

000 director of the tax office

September 13, 2016

October 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 51,081,250,000 on February 1, 2015, of KRW 8,782,640, as the inheritance tax imposed by the Plaintiff.

such excess shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff Kim 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the decedent") 2005 and 0006

In 00 Eup 455-2 and 476-3, respectively, newly constructed a warehouse in 131-10

A. On January 14, 2013 and June 3, 2013, sales was made to KRW 1,178,694,000 in total.

B. Upon the death of the decedent on June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 8,782,640 of inheritance tax with the value of inherited property KRW 1,133,653,629 on September 23, 2013.

C. At the time of commencing the inheritance, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that determined and notified the amount of KRW 298,579,046 in total, which was deposited in each of the respective accounts (hereinafter “each of the instant accounts”) of the inheritee 00 banks (00-000-33, 000-00-00-73, hereinafter “each of the instant accounts”) of the inheritee at the time of commencing the inheritance and the amount of KRW 190,000,000 transferred from the inheritee’s account to the Plaintiff’s account from the date of commencing the inheritance to the Plaintiff’s account from the date of commencing the inheritance (hereinafter “the instant amount”), by excluding KRW 291,943,846, which was reported by the Plaintiff as estimated inherited property, by calculating the amount of inherited property as KRW 1,295,33,866, Feb. 1, 2015.

D. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on September 3, 2015, but was dismissed on December 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The disposal amount of the instant real estate is KRW 1,178,694,00, among which KRW 937,421,570 (including KRW 203,342,09, as stated in the Certificate of Authentication) was substantiated, and only KRW 241,272,430, which is the remainder, is unclear. Thus, the disposal amount of the instant real estate ought to be calculated by regarding only KRW 41,272,430, which deducts KRW 200,000, as estimated inherited property.

2) The Defendant included the instant money in calculating the value of inherited property, but each of the instant accounts in the name of the decedent was actually managed and used by the Plaintiff, and the instant money deposited therefrom is owned by the Plaintiff. In addition, among the instant money, KRW 190,000,000, which was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account on June 11, 2013, was received as the repayment of debt under a certificate of certification. Even if the Plaintiff and the decedent cannot be acknowledged as having been donated to the decedent prior to the commencement date of inheritance, it is merely subject to gift tax, and thus, cannot be subject to inheritance tax.

3) 203,342,099 won must be deducted from the value of the inherited property in accordance with the certificate of certification that the decedent had borne against the plaintiff.

4) Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 8,782,640, which is a legitimate tax amount, among the instant disposition, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the instant money is owned by the Plaintiff

According to the purport of Gap evidence 8-10 and the whole pleadings, it may be recognized that the decedent entered into a deposit contract after undergoing real name verification with 00 bank when opening each of the accounts of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the decedent, as the nominal owner of each of the accounts of this case, had the right to claim the return of the amount equivalent to the money of this case against the 00 bank. Barring any special circumstance, it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only with the statements of evidence Nos. 3 through 10 (including documentary evidence attached with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and testimony of Kims of the witness Kims. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is

2) As to the assertion that the decedent had borne the obligation of KRW 203,342,09 against the plaintiff

According to the evidence No. 9-2, the deceased's letter of private document prepared on December 31, 2008 at the request of the deceased confirmed that the deceased was paid KRW 203,342,09 as the construction cost of each warehouse. It is recognized that the deceased's seal was affixed along with the statement that the deceased's seal was affixed. However, the following circumstances recognized through the overall purport of evidence No. 3 through 10, No. 3-1 through No. 5, the above letter of private document as follows: 1. It is not merely the content of the Plaintiff's lending of the amount equivalent to the construction cost to the deceased; 2. It appears that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the deceased on repayment or interest payment as one of the essential elements of the monetary loan contract under the above letter of private document as above; 3.05,05,000 won cannot be viewed as being collected by the deceased's newly constructed predecessor, and 3.5,03,04,000 won were still recovered by the Plaintiff from the above 14.

3) As to the assertion that KRW 190,000,000 on June 11, 2013 was subject to gift tax and cannot be subject to gift tax

According to Article 13(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of property donated by an ancestor to his/her heir within 10 years before the date inheritance commences is added to the value of inherited property. 190,000,000 won transferred to the Plaintiff’s account immediately before the date inheritance commences shall be added to the value of inherited property. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.