Incheon District Court-2014-Gu -3048 (29 May 2015)

If a loan bond is inherited to the designated party and included in the inherited property, it does not exceed a reasonable tax amount even if the amount withdrawn is excluded from the inherited property.

In light of the fact that there is no objective financial data to support the repayment of a loan before and after the date, while there was a considerable monetary transaction after the date of repayment, it is difficult to believe the loan without any other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Inheritance presumption, etc. of disposed property before the commencement date of inheritance

2015Nu47135. Partial revocation of the imposition and disposition of inheritance tax

AAA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

on October 25, 2016

on 15, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Claim: The part of the Defendant’s disposition imposing inheritance tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on October 2, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: It is so ordered;

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Grades 6, 19 through 21 shall be improved as follows:

Therefore, it is erroneous to presume that the amount of withdrawal in this case constitutes a loan to BB where its purpose is objectively obvious, and thus, it is presumed that it was inherited. However, the defendant added the reason that the CCC’s loan claim against BB is included in inherited property in the court room, and this is examined.

Since the subject matter of a taxation disposition lawsuit is objective existence of legitimate tax amount, the tax authority may submit new data, which can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope of maintaining the identity of the disposition, even if during the lawsuit, until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. It does not necessarily mean that the tax authority can determine the legitimacy of the disposition or claim only the reasons for the disposition by only the data at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4873, Aug. 24, 200

Therefore, the instant disposition does not exceed a legitimate tax amount, even if the amount of the instant withdrawal is excluded from the inherited property, as seen above, if the amount of the instant withdrawal is excluded from the inherited property, as seen in the preceding sentence, if the amount of the loan claim 1,00,000 won to the BB of the decedent CCC, was inherited to the

As to this, on May 10, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 10, 201, 201, before commencement of inheritance (hereinafter “B”); (b) on the ground that BB repaid the above loan to BB, the Plaintiff asserted that the above loan claims are not included in inherited property; and (c) as such, there is evidence indicated in the obligor BB’s confirmation document (Evidence 5-1). However, in light of the evidence No. 4 (BB’s identification statement), the part on which BB borrowed KRW 0 million from CCC in the said confirmation document may be trusted; (b) however, on May 10, 201, the remaining part on which BB repaid the loan to CCC is difficult to support the loan between BB and CCC or the Plaintiff; (c) on the other hand, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 6 and No. 12, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion that the loan was transferred to BB from 100 to 100.10.20.1.20.

(2) Parts 9, 14 through 21 shall be deleted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.