[2] In a case where an ancestor bears a joint and several liability for a third party at the time of commencement of the inheritance or is liable for a surety as a surety, the criteria for determining whether the amount of such liability can be deducted from the value of the inherited property and the burden of proof (=taxpayer)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax imposition disposition shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement, unless it proves that the pertinent facts in question are not eligible to apply the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence. The Incheon branch of the Korea-Japan Bank in the name of the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter "the deceased") was close to the location of the non-party 2 corporation, the executive director, while the plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") was far away from the deceased's domicile at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract on the land of this case. The deposit account of this case was established on the date of payment of down payment for the land of this case and did not deposit money until the deceased's death. The majority of the deposit amount was deposited into the account of the non-party 2 corporation or the check was endorsed and used. The plaintiff was the Incheon branch of the Korea-Japan Bank, and the plaintiff was the above non-party 2 corporation's account of the above non-party 1 corporation. The plaintiff did not submit any relevant 60-party 2 corporation's funds deposited into the account of the above non-party 2 corporation's account and the plaintiff did not actually receive the money from the non-party 2 corporation of this case.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the burden of proof.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased lent KRW 112,50,000 to the non-party 2 corporation and the above money should be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property because its purpose is objectively clear. The court below determined that the above lending claim is included in the taxable value of inherited property as inherited property, inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that the non-party 2 corporation was in an impossible condition at the time of the death of the deceased, even if the lending was recognized, and in light of the relevant regulations and relevant records, the court below's fact-finding and determination are justified.

The judgment of the court below shall not contain any violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The value of inherited property refers to an obligation of which it is deemed certain that an ancestor should pay with a final and conclusive obligation by an ancestor at the time of commencement of the inheritance. Therefore, in cases where an ancestor bears a joint and several liability by an ancestor for a third party or is liable as a surety to secure another's property at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the principal obligor is in an insolvent situation where the obligor is unable to pay his/her obligation, and where it is deemed that there is no possibility of repayment even if the principal obligor exercises his/her right to indemnity against the principal obligor, the amount of such obligation can be deducted from the value of inherited property. In such cases, if the principal obligor is not in an unsound state at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it is generally possible for the principal obligor to receive a loan differently because the status of excess has been continued for a considerable period of time due to bankruptcy, composition, corporate reorganization, or compulsory execution, and there is no intention to review, and such reason has an exceptional effect on the taxable value of inherited property, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the obligor is liable for tax payment under 906.4.296.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 2 corporation 398,106,064 won and its delay damages jointly and severally guaranteed by the deceased were due to the non-party 2 corporation's failure to repay them, and thus, the non-party 2 corporation should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property. The court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the non-party 2 corporation, the principal debtor of the above joint and several surety obligation, at the time of death of the deceased, was in an impossible

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below did not err in its fact-finding and judgment in violation of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to guarantee obligation.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the debt should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property because the deceased bears the debt of KRW 156,00,000 for the non-party 3 and two other persons at the time of death, on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the deceased actually bears the above debt solely on the ground that the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument was rejected, and that it is difficult to conclude that the deceased actually bears the above debt. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and determination are justified.

The court below did not err in violation of the rules of evidence.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)