[2] Whether procedural defects of the original disposition are succeeded to the surviving increase or decrease disposition (negative)

[3] Whether a new decision or a decision to revise an increase may be made within one year from the date the decision or decision becomes final and conclusive under Article 26-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (negative)

[4] Personal scope of a decision of correction, etc. that can be done as follow-up measures following a judgment after the period of exclusion from taxation under Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

[5] In a case where a publicly assessed individual land price for the pertinent year was publicly announced after the inheritance when calculating the value of the land, which is the supplementary assessment method, based on the publicly assessed individual land price (affirmative)

[2] Where a correction disposition is made, the initial disposition is extinguished by absorbing the correction disposition, and the procedural defect of the extinguished original disposition is not succeeded to the continued adjustment disposition.

[3] The provision of Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that when the period of exclusion of taxation expires once the period of exclusion of taxation expires, the taxation right holder cannot make a new decision or a new decision or a new decision or an increase in the decision that does not comply with the relevant decision or decision because the procedure of litigation, such as a request for administrative appeal or administrative litigation, is delayed for a long period of time, and the decision or decision is made after the period of exclusion of taxation expires, it is prepared in order to prevent unreasonable cases where the decision or decision is made after the period of exclusion of taxation expires. In light of the language, the taxation right holder can only make a decision or an increase in the decision in accordance with the relevant decision or decision, and it is not possible to make a new decision or an increase in the decision that does not comply with the relevant decision or decision.

[4] In light of the purport of Article 26-2(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006), even if one year has passed from the date when the judgment, etc. became final and conclusive, barring special circumstances such as succession of tax liability, a person who received the relevant judgment, etc. can only make a correction disposition, etc. according to the relevant judgment, etc., and it does not apply to a third party who does not have the effect of a tax disposition that became the object of revocation or revision.

[5] In a case where the value of the land, which is inherited property, is calculated by the publicly assessed individual land price, which is a supplementary assessment method, even if the publicly assessed individual land price of the pertinent year was not publicly announced at the time of commencement of the inheritance after the commencement of the inheritance, even if the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent year was publicly announced after the commencement of the inheritance, the value of the land shall be assessed based on the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent year after the commencement of the inheritance,

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: while the defendant imposed the disposition of this case on the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter "the deceased")'s heir, it notified only the total amount of tax in the notice of tax payment, and did not separately notify the specific amount of tax for each of the persons jointly liable for tax payment; on the same day, it separately notified the "detailed statement of the tax base and amount of tax of inheritance tax" and the inheritance share corresponding to the ratio of possession of inherited property by heir, and the "the inheritance tax amount and the list of persons jointly liable for tax payment to be paid by heir or testamentary donee" which are recorded in accordance with the aforementioned separate tax amount, and determined that

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of tax payment notice.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

(1) In a case where the taxpayer was stated as “A and seven persons” and the notice of tax payment attached with the name of co-inheritors and the specifications of inheritance shares, etc. was served only on the family head heir Gap, the tax payment notice against Gap cannot be deemed non-existent in relation to the remaining co-inheritors, since the effect of the tax payment notice against other co-inheritors is limited to the other co-inheritors. The defect in the tax payment notice procedure where the tax amount to be borne by each inheritor is stated or the calculation statement is not attached cannot be deemed to be a serious and obvious defect, and thus, the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to be null and void per annum (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du3089 delivered on November 28, 200).

In addition, when there is a correction disposition, the initial disposition is extinguished by absorbing the correction disposition, and the procedural defect of the extinguished original disposition is not succeeded to the continued adjustment disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3625 delivered on August 24, 2006).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant's first disposition on July 1, 1993 against the plaintiffs on the ground that the notice of tax payment indicating only "the plaintiff 2 and 4" was served only on the plaintiff 2. In addition, the above notice of tax payment only stated the total inheritance tax amount and the grounds for calculation, and did not contain a detailed statement on the amount of tax payable and the calculation according to the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance. After the completion of the payment of the first disposition, the defendant issued the second disposition on the ground that the plaintiff and the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 were defective in the procedure of the second disposition on the ground that the second disposition of tax payment was revoked, and the defendant did not seek revocation of the first disposition of tax payment as to the increased portion in the first disposition of tax payment. The court below determined that the first disposition of tax payment cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the first disposition of tax payment merely did not specify the tax amount corresponding to the ratio of inherited property possession of each of the plaintiffs (the first disposition of tax payment.)

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of duty payment notice of inheritance tax, the absence of taxation disposition, and the invalidation

C. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff 1 of the court below reported that the plaintiff 1 of the court below was the deceased's spouse as the deceased's spouse, and reported that the remaining plaintiffs inherited each property as the deceased's children, and that the defendant calculated the inheritance tax amount of KRW 3,331,987,060, which is the initial determined tax amount, and imposed 3/11 shares on the plaintiff 1 of the court below, and 2/11 shares each of the remaining plaintiffs in the statutory inheritance. However, even though the first disposition was made without specifying the amount of installment payments by the heir, the court below determined that the plaintiffs paid the above tax amount without any objection, and it was reasonable to deduct the amount calculated by dividing the amount of the original determined tax amount as the basis of the statutory inheritance which was used as the basis of the original determined tax amount at the time of the disposition as the already determined tax amount as the already paid tax amount.

In light of relevant regulations and records, if the plaintiffs reasonably estimate their intent at the time of the completion of the above tax amount, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the lawful method of calculating the tax amount

D. As to ground of appeal No. 9

(1) Article 26-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that a taxation authority cannot make any disposition, such as a new decision or decision of correction, as well as a decision of correction of the amount of reduction, upon expiration of the period of exclusion under paragraph (1) of the same Article, including a new decision or decision of correction when the period of exclusion under paragraph (1) of the same Article expires, in order to prevent occurrence of unreasonable cases where a decision or decision is made after the period of exclusion of taxation has expired, the taxation authority can only make a decision of correction or disposition incidental to the decision or decision, and it does not make a new decision or new decision of correction that does not comply with the relevant decision or decision (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da36674, Aug. 26, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4754, Apr. 25, 2005).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case against plaintiffs 2 and 3 was lawful in accordance with the purport of the above final judgment prior to the expiration of the exclusion period, on the ground that the defendant rendered the second disposition, which is the disposition of increase or decrease in the whole inherited property and breast-feeding property, including the plaintiff 2 and 3, as taxable object, on the ground that there was a defect in the procedure for notifying the increased portion, and that the defendant again rendered the disposition of this case on the ground that the whole inherited property and breast-feeding property, including the above breast-feeding property, are taxable object before one year has passed since the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

E. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

The gist of the grounds of appeal No. 2 alleged by the plaintiff 2 and 3 is that the court below omitted the judgment on the argument that "the second imposition disposition was unlawful on the basis of the notified tax amount stated in the notice of taxation data issued by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office." However, according to the records, the court below erred in deducting the amount less than the amount initially imposed upon the plaintiff 2 and 3 while making the second imposition on the premise of the first imposition on the presumption of the first imposition on the inheritance tax. However, the second imposition was merely a correction for deducting the amount of the first imposition upon the plaintiff 2 and 3 after deducting the amount of the first imposition on the whole inherited property by deducting the amount of the first imposition from the amount of the inheritance tax, as the plaintiff 2 and 3 additionally discovered the real estate reported by the plaintiff and 3. Thus, the second imposition and the first imposition are conducted in the process of imposing the inheritance tax on the inherited property of the deceased. Such error in the second imposition process is not merely a fault in calculating the amount of taxation. Thus, the judgment below did not affect the second imposition.

The summary of the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 10 alleged by the plaintiff 2 and 3 is that "The decision of March 2, 2004, stated that the decedent was the deceased, and that the heir was the plaintiff 1 of the original judgment, but the court below erred by mistake of facts, etc. due to the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence," but it is merely an error of the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the whole matters of the original judgment, which is the fact-finding court, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff 1 was unlawful since the plaintiff 1 was no longer a spouse of the deceased, not a person liable for tax payment, but a person liable for tax payment under Article 18 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act as a testamentary donee. However, if the amount of inheritance tax calculated by deducting the already paid tax amount of plaintiff 1 from the amount of inheritance tax, the amount of inheritance tax to be additionally imposed on the plaintiff 1 of the

In light of the relevant provisions and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxpayer of inheritance tax.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(1) In light of the purport of Article 26-2(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, even if one year has passed from the date when the judgment, etc. became final and conclusive, barring special circumstances such as succession of tax liability, a taxation authority may make a correction disposition, etc. according to the relevant judgment, etc. only to a taxpayer who has received the relevant judgment, etc. and whose effect of the taxation disposition that has been revoked or altered by the said judgment, etc. is effective, and not to apply the above provision to a third party who does not have the effect of the taxation disposition that has been subject to revocation or alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu68, Sept. 24, 196; 2005Du1688, Feb. 9, 2006)

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the second disposition against the Seoul Administrative Court 2002Guhap27719; and (b) the said court revoked the second disposition upon accepting the claim on March 31, 2003; and (c) the said judgment became final and conclusive through the appellate court; and (d) even if the judgment revoking the second disposition against Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 became final and conclusive, the Defendant can make a new corrective disposition against the Plaintiff 5, who is not a party to the revocation lawsuit, and thus does not have the effect of the said judgment, based on Article 26-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, it is unlawful since the instant disposition against Plaintiff 5 was conducted after the exclusion period was limited.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

(1) Article 5(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992) provides that “Where inheritance commences before a new standard market price is publicly announced, the immediately preceding standard market price shall apply” was deleted on December 31, 1990, but Article 5(2)1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992) which was enforced at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case provides that “The appraisal of land shall be based on the publicly announced publicly announced individual land price under the Act on the Publication of Land Prices and Evaluation of Land, Etc., but the value of land without a publicly announced individual land price shall be the value assessed by the method determined by Presidential Decree in consideration of the publicly announced individual land price of neighboring similar land.”

In a case where the price of land, which is inherited property, is calculated by the publicly assessed individual land price, which is a supplementary assessment method, even if the publicly assessed individual land price of the corresponding year was not publicly announced at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and the publicly announced individual land price of the corresponding year was publicly announced on January 1 of the same year only after the commencement of the inheritance, the value of land shall be assessed on the basis of the publicly notified individual land price of the corresponding year after the commencement of the inheritance, which can be seen as adjacent to the market price by reflecting the land situation at the time of the commencement of the inheritance more appropriately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu4411, Aug. 23, 1996; 98Du1

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the individual land price for the pertinent year was not publicly announced as of May 14, 1991 on the 711-1 miscellaneous land in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, 711-1, 611.57 square meters at the time of commencement of the inheritance, but at the time of June 29 of the same year, new officially announced as of January 1 of the same year, which was 45,000 square meters at the time of commencement of the inheritance of the above land, was publicly announced as of June 29 of the same year, and determined that the above value was close to the market price by reflecting the current status of the land at the time of commencement of the inheritance of the above land more appropriately. In particular, as in this case, if the individual land price was 100,000 won per square meter at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and the officially announced individual land price for the pertinent year was publicly announced as of 45,000 won per square meter in favor of taxpayers.

In light of the above provisions, legal principles, and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation method of inherited property, as

The cases cited in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, with different cases and applicable statutes.

D. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts based on its adopted evidence, and determined that: (a) before Nonparty 2, a police officer, fully formed his own funds through publishing business, it can be deemed that he disposed of the site and ground buildings owned by him and raised the funds therefrom; (b) Nonparty 3 was not sufficiently able to support the deceased’s publication business after having kept the site and ground buildings in Seoul, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and 131-18, and then sold them to the Seoul, and then disposed of them in the name of 3rd to assist the deceased’s publication business; and (c) Nonparty 3 was also entitled to the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment house under the name of 198 of Hyundai apartment after having acquired and resided the apartment house in his name until July 23, 1987; and (d) Hyundai apartment was also entitled to the registration of ownership transfer of the deceased’s property in his name by 198.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)