Whether the partnership obligation should be deducted from the value of the inherited property by deeming it as the obligation of the inheritee.

Since the partnership's obligations are not the sole obligation of the inheritee, the plaintiff's request for correction is unreasonable as it cannot be viewed as the obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property.

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree

Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Partnership-50765

by deeming that a joint business place is attributable to the inheritee’s liability, 14.993,600,000

80,000 won was reported as an inheritance liability amounting to the inheritance deduction amount, and the Seoul Regional Tax Office

The head of the Gu made a decision on the time of report as above.

However, on June 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs’ loans to the Defendant are the inheritee, not the fg enterprise.

Since it is a sole obligation, 5.877 billion won, which is the amount equivalent to the remaining 3/10 shares, shall also be additionally inherited.

3,714,039,055 won to reduce the amount of inheritance tax by deeming it as an inheritance liability equivalent to the amount of deduction.

A request for correction was made to the effect that this is the following table 1:

D. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on November 15, 2016, borrowed debt to the Plaintiffs is in proportion to the equity ratio of the inheritee’

The disposition of this case, which rejected a claim for correction on the ground that the amount must be deducted only (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case").

Sector. ' Sector'.

E. The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on May 31, 2017 with the Tax Tribunal.

Although the appeal was filed, it was dismissed on October 24, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 and 8, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The loan is subject to a loan agreement in the name of the decedent in relation to the Cheongq, the creditor.

As a result, unless there are special circumstances, such as the invalidity of the above loan agreement as a false declaration of conspiracy, etc.

The fact that the principal debt is a sole debt of the inheritee cannot be reversed, and the outstanding loan is a key issue.

Since it was not used in the operation of the instant joint business, the loan at issue is not wholly used.

The obligation to be paid by a member of the State with a final and conclusive burden constitutes a dispute, therefore,

In this case, the plaintiffs' claim for correction is refused to deduct the total amount of loans from the inherited property value.

The instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The joint business of this case, the land of Seoul Ho-gu jky Dong 646-1 and the four floors above that of this case

Joint projects engaged in real estate rental business in water, land and buildings on the third floor above that 652-4;

The head of the same chapter, and the joint operation of the crowdfunding and the covering business in the land and the 4th floor above that 647 buildings;

The workplace is composed of business places.

2) The decedent is separate from the instant joint business, and on December 19, 2004, Seoul Ho-gu kjdong on December 19, 2004

1097-4 Construction of a tourist hotel on the 2nd underground floor and kjgalian hotel on the 15th ground and causes them to be solely

(hereinafter referred to as "the sole business place of this case").

3) On January 3, 2013, the decedents are 12.8 billion 1,000 business facility funds, the loans from the Track.

8 billion won and 8 billion won have been loaned respectively, and "Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for enterprise) prepared by the TPP."

Using the form, each loan agreement has been prepared, and each of the above loan agreements has been made.

In this regard, it is stated that the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for Corporate Purposes) apply.

The key borrowed money was used for the purpose of exchanging the existing borrowed money by the instant joint venture business; and

The decedent and the plaintiff kj have borrowed the issue at issue in this case’s joint venture loan agreement in 2013.

was appropriated in the list as long-term loans.

The decedent and the plaintiff kj as security for the key borrowed money in Seoul

oi-Gu jky 647 land and buildings, and 646-1 land and buildings respectively, set up a right to collateral security;

AA

klj on June 30, 2014 after the death of the decedent, each of the above units of employment on the ground of acceptance of the contract.

The debtor of the mortgage was changed to the plaintiff kj.

4) At the time of the initial request for correction, the Plaintiffs are entitled to KRW 12.8 billion from 'the inheritee' when the request for correction was filed.

Construction of buildings in this case operated jointly by the decedent and the plaintiff klj

and used as operating funds, and borrowed 8 billion won from q and borrowed from 00 billion won, and the joint business in this case

The construction of remodeling and the new construction of parking lot buildings in the Republic of Korea, and the interest on outstanding loans

The payment was made by withdrawing from the business account (titled person) of the instant joint venture business;

C. ‘A'(No. 2) is explained.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4 through 8, 12, Eul evidence 1, 3, 6 through 8 (each of the grounds for Recognition)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

D. Determination

1) Article 14(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (2015.

2. 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

An inheritee's obligation to be deducted from the value of the inherited property pursuant to paragraph (1) of this Article shall be

It means the debts for which it is deemed certain that an ancestor has to pay by final burden.

This reason is exceptionally affected by the determination of the taxable value of inherited property.

Since it falls under a separate ground, the liability for assertion and proof of the existence of the relevant facts is disputing the taxable value.

A taxpayer is on the part of the taxpayer (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410 delivered on December 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410 delivered on September 24, 2004).

See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9886, supra.

On the other hand, a partner who executes the business affairs of a partnership shall be presumed to have the power of representation.

c. In the absence of special circumstances, the obligations of the partnership are obligations of the partnership as obligations of the partnership members.

The holder of a right may, in accordance with the ratio of shares or uniformly, demand each member to effect performance.

the partnership's debt, in particular for all members, is a commercial act.

If a member has a joint liability, the joint liability of the members shall be determined by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 1998). Each partner shall be liable for partnership obligations.

shall be liable for the repayment of obligations with their own property in accordance with the ratio of loss sharing; and

(2) If a partner has been held liable in excess of the loss share ratio, he shall demand the other partner to indemnify for it.

may exercise such rights. In addition, any member raised by him/her solely by bearing a debt.

In the event that funds are invested in the project of a union, there are no special circumstances between the union members.

part of the debt borne by the said partner which exceeds its loss apportionment ratio;

In addition, it is concluded that an implied agreement to claim reimbursement according to the loss apportionment ratio has been concluded.

It is reasonable.

2) We examine this case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

According to the facts found above, the joint venture of this case and the plaintiff klj's letter

a partnership that carries on a joint project, such as the lease of real estate and the investment of investment in the country;

On the other hand, the above facts of recognition No. 8, the whole pleadings, and the whole pleadings.

The following circumstances revealed by the purport of the loan agreement, i.e., the obligation under the loan agreement

The name of the title holder is only written by the decedent, but the key borrowed money is the joint business of this case.

money borrowed for the purpose of operation by means of a long-term loan in the joint business of this case

(2) To loan the key borrowed money as corporate facility fund in the creditor visq.

and at the point of the qo-market, in which the loan contract related to the disputed loan was prepared, co-loans at that time.

in the case of a loan agreement, etc. that is ordinarily deemed to have entered one principal debtor in the loan agreement, etc.

In light of the above, the key borrowed money is operated by the joint venture of this case in which the decedent and the plaintiff klj are the partnership.

(1) If the decedent obtains a loan for the purpose of this section, he shall be qualified as an executive member of the joint venture

It is reasonable to view that it is the partnership's obligation to which a loan agreement was concluded and borne under its name.

Therefore, the decedent who is a member of the instant joint business and the plaintiff klj are the joint business of this case.

section 14(b)(3)(3) of the Civil Act

and further, the decedent and the plaintiff klj are engaged in commercial activities for the instant joint business.

Since it is reasonable to see that the principal has been liable for the outstanding loan due to the act of inheritance, it shall be deemed that the principal

Pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, both parties and plaintiffs klj shall pay outstanding loans to the q.

have obligations.

In addition, the principal's sole liability in the external relationship with the principal's loan obligations.

Even if there is room to see as above, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the loan at issue is interest.

The decedent and the plaintiff can be deemed to have been put into a joint business place, except in extenuating circumstances.

klj 3/10 of the outstanding loan obligations of the inheritee which exceed the ratio of the inheritee’s loss;

It is ratified that an implied agreement to claim the portion against the plaintiff klj has been concluded.

In the end, the decedent shall be liable for the outstanding loan beyond 7/10 of its loss sharing ratio.

In that sense, the plaintiff klj may exercise its right to indemnity against the plaintiff klj, the outstanding loan obligations

Part 3/10 exceeding the ratio of shares of the inheritee in the commencement of the inheritance shall have the nationality of the inheritee at the time of the commencement

shall not be deemed a debt deemed to have been guaranteed to be performed at its own expense.

3) In relation to this, the Plaintiffs’ issues, even based on the statement of financial position of the instant joint business

It is clear that the loan is not used or reverted to the place of joint business of this case, and issues are controversial.

The disposition of this case on the premise that the loan is a loan for the joint venture business of this case is unlawful

However, the plaintiffs' above assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A) The Plaintiffs, on the basis of the end of 2013, have net value of the assets of the instant joint venture business.

On the other hand, a financial institution's loan obligation amounting to KRW 10.9 billion against the end of 2002, while a financial institution's loan obligation amounting to KRW 20.8 billion

The liability exceeding the net value of the assets in accordance with the principle of average of loans and loans is the joint venture business in this case.

The loan obligation at issue shall be deemed to have been used outside of the Republic of Korea, or the joint business of this case

for the purpose of replacing the existing long-term loan, and the source of the occurrence of such long-term loan

(2) In light of the record, the joint venture loan of this case from 3.4 billion won at the end of 2008 to 2009

The cost of extending the joint business of this case in 209, even though the amount of KRW 18.9 billion increased by around 22.3 billion;

A. The remaining 13.32 billion won, which is merely a 5.586 billion won, is merely a 5.3 billion won joint project of this case.

It should be seen as being used outside the country. Ultimately, the place used outside the country of this case.

loan obligations in the issue of loan, made for the purpose of replacing the loan with the loan, also in the case of the joint venture business

claim that it may not be attributed to the Corporation.

However, the principle of the average of lending and lending is the total amount of assets, i.e., the balance of the statement of financial position.

and the total amount of capital shall be consistent, between the end of 2002 and the end of 2013.

Other liabilities and capital items are not known, and the financial instruments of this case are not known.

If the amount of the loan exceeds the net increase of assets, whether the loan is due to the occurrence of the

The involvement of other elements, such as efficacy, shall not be excluded, and the cost of extension and part of the item of assets shall not be excluded.

The joint project of this case where the difference equivalent to the difference is compared only to the increase in long-term loans among the items.

In light of the fact that it cannot be seen that it was used in any place other than the head, the Plaintiff asserted earlier.

The sole reason is that the loan obligation is not the partnership obligation of the joint venture business of this case.

personal purposes of the person, or used in the sole workplace of this case operated by the predecessor

It can not be regarded as a sole obligation of the inheritee.

B) The plaintiffs, with respect to the borrowed issue from the Tweq china loans, are the public of this case

The amount of interest paid in relation to loan obligations from 2002 to 2013 exceeds KRW 11 billion;

The amount recognized as interest expense in the income statement of the joint business of this case is 6.25,900

Some of the loans belonging to the joint business place of this case is merely a full source and is not a partnership debt.

I argue that it can be known.

However, the documents submitted by the Plaintiffs as evidence to support the above assertion, including bank loans and interest payments

(A) The evidence No. 11) is a document voluntarily prepared by the plaintiffs, and according to the statement No. 9 of the evidence No.

Part of the obligations stated in the above document shall be chaptered on the balance sheet of the sole workplace of the inheritee

The loan is also deemed to have been appropriated in the loan, and only the above materials alone are the loan liability.

No liability for the joint business of this case shall be deemed to be not a debt.

C) The Plaintiffs: 7 billion won when the decedent acquired the instant sole business establishment in 2004.

98 million won was required, and 5.6 billion won among which 5.6 billion won was borrowed from the sole place of business, the remainder 14

It argues that the amount of KRW 98 million was appropriated by the funds of the joint venture business in this case.

However, on the statement of financial position of the joint venture in 2004, 2.7 billion won in the assets shall be 2.7 billion won in the assets.

Plaintiff merely stated KRW 4.179 billion, and other KRW 1.289 billion, and the other Plaintiff

There is no evidence to support the above argument.

D) The Plaintiffs out of the joint venture loan of this case, 4.1 billion won on July 31, 2006.

Since it is difficult to find out the place of use of KRW 50 million, the time when the place of use belongs to the liability of the joint place of this case.

Although it is alleged that the above amount cannot be complied with, the above amount is equivalent to the above amount merely because it is alleged by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the plaintiffs may not be excluded from the debt of the joint business, and the plaintiffs shall originally have the tax authority.

jh loans granted by the joint venture operator of the instant joint venture business with respect to the amount

There is also a vindication that it is presumed to be presumed.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s obligation to borrow key loans is the sole obligation of the predecessor.

Now, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

AA Head of the Tax Office

November 8, 2018

January 31, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The rejection disposition of correction of KRW 3,714,039,055 against the plaintiffs on November 5, 2016 by the defendant of the Gu office was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs are co-inheritorss of theqwewe (hereinafter “the inheritee”). On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs reported to the Defendant KRW 10,732,634,708 of the inheritance tax amounting to KRW 65,567,832,352, inheritance deduction amounting to KRW 37,672,973,01, and inheritance deduction amounting to KRW 28,50,959,351.

B. From March 27, 2015 to September 25, 2015, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an inheritance tax investigation. ① From the amount of inheritance deduction reported by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff filed a declaration on the remainder of the inheritance obligations except for the guaranteed liability and progress interest for the debts of uuo Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “wwwq”), which are owed by the decedent to the Federation of lkjj Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Federation of Cooperatives”). ② Also, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that the prior donation property was omitted. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

On December 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a revised and notified additional inheritance tax of KRW 2,725,346,020 (including additional tax) to the Plaintiffs, reflecting the guaranteed liability and interest that was denied as above, KRW 3,922,435,210, etc.

C. Meanwhile, the deceased and the plaintiff klj, his spouse, were deceased from September 17, 2002.

Until December 31, 2013, 290 (jky Dong, 646-1, 647, 651, and 652-4) had the name of "fg enterprise" as Seoul Doi-gu ku, Seoul ku, and 290 (jky, 646-1, 647, 651, and 652-4) jointly run real estate rental business and klj 3/1000 (hereinafter referred to as "the joint venture business in this case") with the distribution ratio of the decedent 7/10, and Plaintiff klj 3/10, u300) jointly run real estate rental business and investment market business (hereinafter referred to as "the joint venture business in this case"). At the time of the commencement of the loan in this case, the Plaintiffs, among the financial institution obligations of the decedent in the name of the decedent as of December 31, 2013.