1. According to Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where an ancestor bears an obligation within one year prior to the commencement of inheritance, and the sum of such amounts is 50 million won or more, and the usage thereof is objectively unclear, "where the other party to the transaction who has paid the money, etc. that the ancestor has paid has not verified due to lack of transaction documents, etc.," such amount shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property. In calculating the taxable value of inherited property, in principle, the amount of obligation recognized as guaranteed by the Government shall be deducted from the value of inherited property (Articles 4 (1) 3 and 10 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act). However, where the sum of the debts borne by the ancestor is more than 50 million won within one year prior to the commencement of inheritance, the amount obtained by the ancestor is likely to be donated or inherited in cash, and there is a need to prevent any act to reduce the taxable value of inherited property by reducing the inheritance tax due to the commencement of inheritance. Therefore, the aforementioned provision should be objectively included in the taxable value of inherited property.

Therefore, even if the total amount of debts borne within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance exceeds 50 million won, the use of some of the debts borne by it is objectively unclear, and if the use of the remaining amount is objectively obvious, only the amount of the part, the use of which is objectively unclear, shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property, and if the use is objectively obvious, it shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs, who are the deceased's co-property inheritors based on its adopted evidence, reported to the defendant about the above deceased's debt as 60 million won in total. The defendant is a debt exceeding 50 million won in total borne by the deceased within one year prior to the commencement of inheritance and that the purpose of using the fund raised by the deceased's debt burden is not objectively clear, and the above amount was included in the taxable value of inheritance and the inheritance tax and defense detailed and disposition against the plaintiffs. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that "30 million won in total borrowed from the former branch of the National Bank of Korea on May 26, 1984 because it was hard to find that the above 30 million won was used for the repayment of the debt to the people's population, and it is hard to find the court below's assertion that it was unlawful to include the defendant's 60 million won in the taxable value of inheritance tax as evidence for lack of credibility of the above evidence."

2. Where the sum of debts borne by the decedent within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance is at least 50 million won, and the purpose of using the funds obtained by the decedent due to its debt burden is objectively unclear, the inheritance tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof should be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to the above-mentioned Inheritance Tax Act and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, even if the inheritor asserted that the sum of debts borne by the decedent within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance tax in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition is less than 50 million won, even if the inheritor asserted that the sum of debts owed by the decedent within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance tax return and the evidence attached thereto is less than 50 million won, the application of the above provisions under the Enforcement Decree cannot be avoided.

The judgment below to the above purport is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Inheritance Tax Act or the Enforcement Decree thereof.

However, according to the records, the plaintiffs purchased 30,000 won from the non-party 1 to 300,000 won for the above 100,000 won for 180,000 won for each of the above 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for each of the above 9,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for each of the above 9,000 won for 30,000 won for 13,000 won for 10,000 won for each of the above 133,03.

Nevertheless, without a reasonable basis, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the testimony of the documentary evidence of the court below without a reasonable ground cannot be trusted in light of the whole purport of the pleading, and that the evidence No. 10-3 cannot be considered as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and that there is a lack to recognize the above facts alone. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have committed an error in violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the value judgment of the evidence and thereby, it is not reasonable to point out this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)