Daejeon District Court 2009Guhap4762 ( October 17, 2012)

Part of the estimated value of inherited property shall be deemed to have objectively proven its use.

Since some of the estimated value of inherited property should be excluded from the estimated value of inherited property, and the amount of tax calculated by deducting the amount of gift tax on donated property added to inherited property from the inheritance tax amount calculated, the total amount of taxation disposition should be revoked on the ground that it is impossible to calculate the reasonable amount of gift tax on the donated property in this case.

2012Nu629 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax

1. A 2. Chapter BB

Daejeon director of the tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Guhap4762 Decided February 17, 2012

July 10, 2014

September 4, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The imposition of the OOOO on August 1, 2008 by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked by the OOOOO in the imposition of the 2006 inheritance tax.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition by the defendant on August 1, 2008 against the plaintiffs on August 1, 2008 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below shall be revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the inheritance tax 2006 against the plaintiffs on August 1, 2008 (the court of first instance rejected the lawsuit seeking revocation of the part exceeding the OOO won among the disposition of imposition of the OOO, but the plaintiffs did not appeal against it, the above part shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs were the children of the GNCC, who died on February 22, 2006, and were the successors of the GNCC (hereinafter only referred to as “NCC”), and did not report inheritance tax on the property inherited from the GNCC.

B. From May 6, 2008 to June 18, 2008, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiffs. Between 2008 and 168-3 square meters and 1,159.83 square meters for each of the instant real estate units (hereinafter “1 real estate”), which included 169-1 square meters and 167.3 square meters for each of the instant real estate units, and 2000,000 won for each of the instant real estate units and 200,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 20,000.

Table 1 A list of the disposal amount of each real estate of this case

Disposal Property

Sales proceeds

Use Place

Use Place

Unclearer Value

Use

Amount

Real Estate 1 of this case

OOOE

Repayment of Loans

OOOE

OOOE

Set-off of Security Deposit

OOOE

Divorce solatium

OOOE

Transfer Income Tax and Resident Tax

OOOE

Inheritance

OOOE

Real Estate 2 of this case

OOOE

None

OOOE

Total

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

C. Since then, the Defendant, ex officio, deducted the amount of KRW 1 real estate brokerage commission of the instant case where the place of use was confirmed in the value of the said estimated inherited property, and reduced the estimated value of the inherited property to KRW OO. A. On December 5, 2008, by additionally recognizing the amount of KRW OO of the inheritance deduction amount of the financial property of the said borrowed deposit, and notified the reduction of inheritance tax to KRW OO(OO won refund) on December 5, 2008 (hereinafter the disposition of this case).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 10, 2009 on November 6, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 9, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 10, 16, 18 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

“A) Even if the purchase price for each of the instant real estate was included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, unless it is proved that the purchase price was inherited in cash to the Plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed as included in “property acquired by inheritance.” The burden of proving that the purchase price is included in the scope of “property acquired by inheritance” by inheritance to the Plaintiffs is, in principle, the tax authority, and there is no proof that there was any indirect fact that the Plaintiffs presumed that the purchase price for each of the instant real estate was inherited in cash. Rather, the Plaintiffs were living in and out of the way, and the ChapterCC did not inherit the sale price for each of the instant real estate to the neighboring parties, and it was apparent that the Defendant, as the fact that the Plaintiff did not inherit the sale price for each of the instant real estate in cash, sent out the sale price for each of the instant real estate to a third party, which was not a heir, and that the Plaintiff’s use of the sales price for each of the instant real estate was not clear that the Plaintiff’s use of the sales price for each of the instant real estate was not clear.

C) Even if the allegations in paragraphs (a) and (b) above are not accepted, ① the total amount of loans and total amount of OOOOOO paid by Category HH in the purchase price of each real estate of this case, shall be excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. ② After the sale of each real estate of this case, OOOO shall also be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. ③ Since the estimated amount of inherited property should be calculated by type of assets, OOOOO shall be deposited into the deposit account among the sales price of real estate of this case, the estimated amount of real estate of this case shall be calculated by deducting 200 million won from each unclear amount of inherited property, separately from the estimated amount of real estate and the estimated amount of inherited property of this case.

2) Defendant

A) The sales price of the instant 2 real estate is an OOO, and the sales price of each of the instant real estate is presumed to have been inherited by the Plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to deem that some of them were donated to HH or UF. There is no evidence to deem that the UF was donated to H or UF. The UF purchased GG commercial buildings under the name of Hai II or U.S.J.J.

B) Even if a gift is recognized with respect to Class H or F, the pertinent amount is included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 13(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, there is no change in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, which is the basis of the instant disposition, in conclusion.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument of the plaintiffs

Article 15(1)1 and 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that where the aggregate amount of the inherited property disposed of by the predecessor or the debt exceeds 500 million won by kind of the inherited property within two years before the commencing date of the inheritance, the disposal price or loan money shall be converted to the heir who is not easy to be exposed to taxation data, so that the heir can not unjustly reduce inheritance tax due to the donation or inheritance. Thus, if the tax authority proves that the purpose of use is unclear objectively, the tax authority may include the amount in the taxable value of inherited property even if the taxpayer does not prove that the amount is inherited in cash, unless the heir proves that the amount is inherited, it shall be deemed that the amount can be included in the taxable value of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98DuO, Sept. 3, 199).

On the premise of these legal principles, the first OOO on the instant real estate among DDD DD DD branch offices located on December 1, 2004, which was within two years before the date the inheritance commences, and on February 17, 2006, sold the second real estate to OOOO (the plaintiff asserted that the purchase price of the second real estate is OOOOO, but that it was later viewed that the purchase price of the second real estate was OOOOO, it is without merit). This constitutes both cases where the amount received by the decedent, who was the decedent, was calculated by the type of property within two years before the date the inheritance commences, and at least 50 million won is calculated by the type of property within two years after the date the inheritance commences, and when the tax authority proves that the use was objectively unclear, it should be presumed that the amount inherited by the plaintiffs, even if the tax authority did not prove that the amount was inherited, should be included in the inheritance tax and the amount inherited by the plaintiffs.

Article 15(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be deemed to apply to the case where: (a) the plaintiffs have to prove that they inherited the purchase price of each real estate of this case in cash; or even if the plaintiffs did not inherit the purchase price of each real estate of this case, if the use location is not clearly established only due to such reason (the Supreme Court Decision 97NuOO Decided September 9, 1997 cited by the plaintiffs is different from the presumption provision of Article 15(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that differs from the application of the presumption provision of Article 15(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that differs from the presumption provision of Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that differs from the presumption provision of Article 15(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the calculation of the taxable value of inherited property borne by the inheritors, that is, the limitation of liability for tax

2) Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiffs

A) Facts of recognition

(1) Sale of real estate No. 1 of the instant case and transfer of the purchase price

(A) On December 1, 2004, a ChapterCC sold the real estate No. 1 of this case to DDD SDR branch offices, and an OOOO2 received from the purchase price, as the repayment of loans borrowed from the real estate No. 1 of this case as a security, and the other OOO2 (OO2) was used as a set-off amount, and the other OO2 (O2) was deposited into the account of one bank (Account No. O-O-OO-OO-OOOOOOOOOO) in the name of the father of the ChapterCC.

(B) On December 3, 2004, one bank account (Account NumberO-O-O-OOOOOOOO) in the name of ACC was withdrawn on December 3, 2004, and deposited on January 10, 2005. Among them, ① OO-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that was deposited on the account in the name of ABCC, ② OOOOO was deposited on the account of a bank account in the name of ABCC (Account Number O-O-O-OOOOOOOO) in the name of AB, and ③ other OO directors were withdrawn in cash.

(C) On January 11, 2006, when the above OOO was deposited by the above OOOO, it was withdrawn from the above IOOO bank account under the name of the above OCC, and the OOO was re-issued with a check (the head of the OO, the head of the OO, the head of the OO, the head of the KRW 1 million, the head of the OO, the head of the KRW 1 million), and the other OO was not verified.

(D) Of the total amount of the check, ① OOO(OO on KRW 50 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 100,000, KRW 1000,000) was exchanged in cash at one bank’s OF branch, OO branch, OO branch, OO branch, OO branch, or O branch on January 16, 2006; ② OOOOO branch (OO on KRW 10 million) was linked to one bank at one bank on February 8, 2006, KRW 10,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 26,000, KRW 26,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 26,000, KRW 26,000.O.

(E) On the other hand, among the total amount of the above check, the rest of the OOO(OO - OOO - 10 million won - 50 million won, OO, 10 million won , OO, 10 million won , and 1 million won - from February 22, 2006 to March 17, 2006, in which case the payment was made by anyone.

(2) Sale of real estate No. 2 of the instant case and transfer of the purchase price

(A) On February 17, 2006, the CategoryCC sold the instant 2 real estate to KimE, the wife of Kim KK, to the OE, in the name of the OE, and KimE was loaned the instant 2 real estate from the LL Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as the “LL Credit Union”) as security, after the transfer registration of ownership in its name on the instant 2 real estate was completed.

(B) Of the above OOO members, the OOO members were issued as checks at the OO branch of the National Bank (10 million won). After the 10,000,000 won, 10,000 won among theO branch of the AO branch of the AO branch of the AO branch of the AO branch of the AO branch was deposited into the OO branch of the KO branch of the KO branch of the KO branch of the GO branch of the KO branch of the GO branch of the KO branch of the GO branch of the KO branch of the 17 February 2006, 200 (2) the O branch of the KO branch (2) was deposited into the KO branch of the KO branch of the KO branch of the KO branch of the K branch of the KO branch of the K branch of the NO branch of the K branch of the K branch of the NO branch of the N branch of the N branch of the N branch of the N branch of the other O branch of the C.

(C) On the other hand, on February 17, 2006, KimE remitted OOOOO of the instant 2 real estate purchase price to the LLL New Cooperative account in the name of F (Account Number OO-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO). OOO owned by it to the UF also owned by OOOO-O-O-O-O-O-OOOOOO-179,207 square meters (hereinafter “the instant PP real estate purchase price”), the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million against the obligor KimE-O-mortgage.

In relation to this, KimK stated to the effect that at the time of the Defendant’s initial tax investigation, it paid KRW 2 real estate purchase price OOOOO in the instant case to PCC. On November 10, 2009, at the time of the police’s investigation by the witness of the witness of the police, he stated to the effect that all OOOOOO was paid to POOOO in the instant case. On December 1, 2009, at the time of the police’s investigation by the witness of the police, he made a false statement to the effect that he was aware that he received part of the purchase price of the instant 2 real estate at the time of the police’s investigation by the UFF’s request. The fact was that OOOO and cash OOOOO only paid all of the purchase price of the instant 2 real estate to PE in the instant case. The remaining OOOOO was reversed to the purport that it was set up a collateral security in lieu of the establishment of the instant PEP in the name of this case.

(3) The FF's purchase of commercial buildings and use of loans

(가) 유FF은 류CC의 사촌동생으로 GGG 상가 점포에서 의류를 판매해오던 중 2층 점포를 다수 매입하여 QQQ 슈퍼마켓을 운영하기로 하고, GGG 상가 점포를 처 한II과 동생 유JJ 명의로 매수하였는바 그 매수현황은 아래의 <표2>와 같다. <표2> 순번 1, 2번의 매매대금을 인정할 객관적 자료는 없고 실질적 매도인이라 주장하는 노RR의 구두진술에 의하면 매매대금 항목 란에 있는 것과 같다. 다만 순번 2번의 감정평가 금액(2006. 1. 18. 농협중앙회 대출시 감정평가함)은 OOOO원이므로 실제 매매대금은 그보다 더 높은 것으로 추정된다.

Table 2. The current status of purchase of GGG stores by the UF

No.

Date and

Seller

A registrant of registration;

Sales Stores

Sales proceeds

1

November 30, 2005

SS Corporation

IB

209-212 Of 209-212 (4)

OOOE

2

January 18, 2006

SS

JJ

207, 215, 217-227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 237 (18)

OOOE

3

January 3, 2007

ICT

JJ

206

OOOE

4

March 8, 2007

SongU

IB

216

OOOE

(B) Meanwhile, the FF obtained a loan under the name of Section II and the United StatesJ as security while purchasing GG commercial buildings, and the entire details of the loan are as follows.

Details of loans borrowed from the FF; and

No.

Date and

Financial Institutions

A lender;

Collateral

Amount of loan;

1

November 30, 2005

The Agricultural Cooperatives Federation

IB

209-212 Of 209-212 (4)

OOOE

2

January 18, 2006

The Agricultural Cooperatives Federation

JJ

207, 215, 217-227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 237 (No. 18)

OOOE

3

January 3, 2007

LLLIS

JJ

206, 207, 215, 217-227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 237 (No. 19)

OOOE

4

March 8, 2007

LLLIS

IB

216

OOOE

(C) Among the above OOO members borrowed under the name of FF on November 30, 2005 under the name of F II, OOO and OOO members were replaced on November 30, 2005 and December 7, 2005, respectively (in the form of withdrawal that does not involve cash-related transactions), and the remainder amount was given in multiple times from November 30, 2005 to December 19, 2005.

(4) On January 18, 2006, the No. 200, the No. 1000,000 won of the No. 200,000 won of the No. 200,000 won of the No. 206, the No. 106,000,000 won of the No. 200,000,000 won of the No. 206, the No. 106,000,000 won of the No. 206, was issued by the No. 10,000,000 won of the No. 20,000, issued by the No. 10,000,000 won of the No. 206, No. 10,000,000,000 won of the No. 206,00,000 won of the checks.

"(e) Among the OOO members borrowed under the name of the United StatesJ on January 3, 2007 by the FF, ① OOO members were withdrawn under the name of the Bank on January 3, 2007, ② OOO members were withdrawn in cash on the same day ③ on January 10, 2007, ③ OO members were transferred to the head of the Tong under the name of the Court of Justice; and (f) on March 8, 2007, the UFF borrowed under the name of II on March 8, 2007, the COO members were transferred to the BOU, and the other OOO members were entirely withdrawn on the same day,” and (d) FF’s statement.

(A) On October 22, 2009, the UF made a statement to the effect that there was no property received from the CategoryCC at the time of the police investigation, and on November 25, 2009, the NF used part of the purchase price of the instant 2 real estate in the police investigation to purchase the instant 2 real estate and other OOO0 won, and reversed the statement.

(나) 이후 유FF은 2010. 5. 19. 제1심에서 증인으로 출석하여 류CC가 이 사건 제2부동산의 매매대금 중 OOOO원을 사업자금으로 사용하라고 하여 김KK로부터 OOOO원을 계좌로 지급받았고, 류CC의 지시로 이 사건 PP 부동산에 관하여 대물변제조로 근저당권을 설정 받았다. GGG 상가를 총 OOOO원에 매수하였는데, 그 중 OOOO원은 한II과 유JJ 명의로 대출받아 마련하고, 나머지 OOOO원은 류CC로부터 지급받았다 는 취지로 증언하였고, 2011. 7. 13. 제1심에서 재차 증인으로 출석하여 류CC로 받았다는 OOOO원에는 이 사건 PP 부동산에 관하여 설정된 근저당권의 피담보채무액 OOOO원이 포함된 것이다. 류CC로부터 실제로 받은 것은 OOOO~OOOO원이고, 이를 QQQ 운영자금이나 사업자금으로 사용하였다 는 취지로 증언하였다.

(5) Family relationship, etc. of the plaintiffs

(A) On October 2004, CC divorceds with leapa, the mother of the Plaintiffs, and thereafter the Plaintiffs lived with leapa. Since several years prior to the death of the Plaintiffs on February 22, 2006, CC did not recognize the Plaintiffs as their children and did not come from the leapa with the Plaintiffs, while she was on the her father’s hH’s house and did not come from the leapa. The Plaintiffs were later on the death awareness of the leapCC.

(B) On January 1, 2006, APCC was diagnosed with liver cancer and was hospitalized in an OV hospital on February 15, 2006, but died on February 22, 2006.

[Grounds for recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 14, 18 through 20 (including paper numbers), witness Nos. 1, H, and testimony No. HaF of the first instance court, witness No. HaF of the first instance court, witness No. H, and testimony of U.S. F.O. of the National Agricultural Cooperative of this Court, September 8, 2012, 2013, No. 86, Jun. 8, 2012, No. 11387, Jun. 10, 2013; No. 11873, Jun. 10, 2013; No. 11873, Aug. 12, 2013;

B) Determination as to whether the Defendant’s use of the sales price of the instant real estate No. 1 is unclear

(1) The part that deemed that the use has been proven

(6) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, “OF 1” and “F 2OF 1” and “OF 20 GG 1” and “OF 2” have consistently been purchased from 20 GG 10,000,000,000 won and 6OF 20,000,000,000 won and 6G 20,000,000,000 won and 6G 10,000,000,000 won and 6,000,000,000,000 won and 6,000,000,000 won and 6,00,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 6,00,000,000 won and 6,00,00,00 won and 20,000,00 won and 6,00,00,00 won.

According to the above facts, the defendant's use of the real estate purchase price of this case is not clear, and it is impossible to track the fact because the check was withdrawn in cash or the check was not presented for payment. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone was delivered to the F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was delivered to the F. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion related to this part is groundless.

C) Determination as to whether the Defendant’s use of the purchase price of the second real estate in the instant case is unclear

(1) Determination of the purchase price of the second real estate

The plaintiffs asserted that the use of the purchase price of the second real estate of this case was clearly clear, under the premise that the purchase price of the second real estate of this case is not an OOO but an OOO won, and therefore, first, we look at whether the purchase price of the second real estate of this case was clearly clear.

According to the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 9, No. 10, and No. 12, the sales price of the instant real estate No. 2 is stated as OOO in the real estate sales contract as of January 3, 2006, and the total purchase price of the instant real estate No. 2 is stated as OOOO in the agreement made between CC and KimE as to the instant real estate No. 2, and the sales contract was entered as of February 17, 2006, which was submitted to the Daejeon District Court OOO support, as of February 17, 2006, it is stated that the sales price of the instant real estate No. 2 was an OOO. 6,8,9, 12, and No. 18-6, which is contrary to the above, it is difficult to recognize that the sales price of the instant real estate was part of the purchase price of the instant real estate as of the first Defendant’s OOOO.

Next, we examine whether there is any part of the OO of the purchase price of the second real estate in this case, which has been proven for use.

(2) Parts proving the purpose of use

(A) On February 17, 2006, part of the OOO which was deposited into the passbook of the FF

On February 17, 2006, when the real estate No. 2 was sold, it was deposited by the OE in the passbook of FF from KimE to the passbook. On December 1, 2009 at the time of the investigation by the witness of the police, KimK deposited the OE out of the purchase price of the real estate No. 2 of this case into the passbook. The UF was present at the first instance court on May 19, 2010, and testified that HCC was paid the OE out of the purchase price of the real estate No. 2 of this case as the business fund by using the OE out of the purchase price of the real estate No. 2 of this case as the business fund. Considering the purport of the argument stated in No. 3 of the evidence No. 10, the U.S. government withdrawn from the above OF on March 23, 2006. According to the fact that the U.S. government deposited the FO out of the sale price of the passbook No. 2 of this case. 2016.7.

(B) OOO on April 18, 2006, the sum of the checks exchanged in cash through this NN upon request by NH, and OO on the aggregate of the remaining checks.

On February 17, 2006, Kim Nam-Nam purchased the instant 2 real estate from OE at 200 won. Of them, OE paid 10 million won as a check issued at the O branch of the National Bank (OE). From among OE on April 18, 2006, OE (OE No. 1048O-O4O9O) exchanged the 20th EN with cash at the National Bank's Daejeon Branch, in light of the overall purport of the arguments on the above recognition, OE was deemed to have not been able to verify the details of the 2nd OE’s total receipt of the 2nd OE after the death of HCC, and the remainder of the 2nd OCC’s receipt of the 2nd 2016th 27th 27th 206 OE’s total receipt of the 2nd oE’s real estate after the remainder of the 2016th 27th O.

(C) Of the sales price of the instant 2 real estate, part of the KRW OO of the secured debt, which was to substitute for payment with the establishment of a collateral security right on the instant P real estate

On February 17, 2006, KimE set up a right to collateral security against the FF with respect to the instant PP real estate owned by it on the date of purchasing the instant 2 real estate from CC. Accordingly, KimK and UF stated to the effect that, in lieu of paying a part of the purchase price of the instant 2 real estate, an agreement was reached between the FF to set up a right to collateral security regarding the instant P real estate in lieu of paying a part of the purchase price, Kim K and UF stated that the secured debt amount is an OOF. According to the above findings of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the FF was donated OOOF as a donation from CC by means of having the establishment registration of a collateral security right covering the PPF of the instant real estate as a collateral security right.

(3) The portion that cannot be deemed to have proved that the use was proven.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone that part of the remainder of the OOO won was additionally donated to HO is difficult to acknowledge that, among the OOO won in the purchase price for the second real estate of this case, the rest of the OO won, other than the OO won recognized as clearly used above, was sent to HO as alleged by the Plaintiffs, or used to waste the OCC. Considering the fact that the remainder of the OOO won was hospitalized in the OO university hospital on February 15, 2006, it is also difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that CC used to waste part of the second real estate purchase price for the second real estate of this case. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument by the plaintiffs

A) First, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether to deduct the total amount of loans and the total amount of OOOO won from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, as a whole, OOOO won was paid from the bank account of NA from October 6, 2003 to May 6, 2004, and the interest payment from May 13, 2004 to December 1, 2004 was paid from HH’s bank account, however, the fact that OOOOO won was deposited from Y’s passbook account to H’s bank account on April 2004 to 17, 2004, and that at least OOOOO won was paid from OO of each of the real estate of this case to H, as a whole, it appears that OOOO was paid from 200,0000 to OO capital of this case, the Plaintiffs’ allegation that the above H was reasonable.

B) Next, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and 8 with respect to whether the amount of sales price of real estate No. 1 of this case should be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes for the 13-month period after the sale of the real estate in this case, it can be recognized that the sales price of the real estate No. 1 of this case is an OOO personnel, and the amount equivalent to the OOOO personnel was held in the deposit or cash. Moreover, it is deemed possible to cover daily living expenses with the profits that can be derived from the operation of OOO personnel, and even if there is no evidence to deem that the OCC paid the above amount for the daily living expenses, it is difficult to view that the COCC spent the living expenses in the sales price of the real estate No. 1 of this case. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C) Article 15(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19513, Jun. 12, 2006) provides that, in cases where the purchase price of each of the instant real estate is calculated based on the types of property (i.e., cash, deposits and securities, rights to real estate, and other property), the estimated amount of disposal and withdrawal amount of each of the instant real estate shall be calculated within two years (1 year) before the commencement of inheritance, and the estimated amount of disposal and withdrawal amount of each of the instant real estate shall be deducted from the estimated amount of each of the instant real estate and the estimated amount of each of the inherited property, whichever is less than 20% of the estimated amount of each of the transferred property and the estimated amount of each of the transferred property shall be deducted from the estimated amount of each of the transferred property and the estimated amount of each of the transferred property shall be excluded from the estimated amount of each of the transferred property.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, among the sales price for the first real estate of this case, the total amount of OOOO won donated to FF on or around January 18, 2006, and OOOO won donated to FF on or around February 17, 2006, and OOO won donated to FF on or around February 17, 2006 (hereinafter “the donated property of this case”) shall be excluded from the value of the estimated inherited property, since the use of the donated property is proved. Meanwhile, the donated property of this case constitutes the value of donated property to FF and H, which are not the heir, within five years before the commencement date of the inheritance. Since Article 13(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax under Article 13(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, there is no change in the taxable amount of inheritance tax based on the disposal of this case, but Article 28(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the gift tax amount of this case should be deducted from the calculated gift tax amount of this case.

However, the determination of legality of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is based on whether it exceeds a legitimate tax amount. The parties concerned may submit objective tax bases and materials supporting the tax amount until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. When calculating a legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount must be revoked, but in the case of not, the entire tax disposition must be revoked. In such a case, the court does not have the duty to calculate a legitimate tax amount by finding ex officio and reasonable and reasonable methods of calculating a reasonable and reasonable tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94NuOO, Apr. 28, 1995). The evidence presented during the argument in this case cannot be calculated on the sole basis of the evidence presented during the argument in this case. Accordingly, the pertinent disposition in this case must be revoked in its entirety.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim shall be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the disposition of this case shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.