[2] In imposing inheritance tax on co-inheritors, the taxpayer is indicated only as "other than A" and the total amount of inheritance tax and the basis for calculation thereof are stated, and a tax payment notice is deemed as having been issued (negative)

[2] The inheritance tax imposition disposition, which indicated only the taxpayer's total amount of inheritance tax and only the basis of calculation thereof, without stating the tax amount to be borne by co-inheritors and the calculation thereof in the tax payment notice, was wholly unlawful even if the co-inheritors were notified of the total amount of inheritance tax and the basis of calculation thereof.

Article 18(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that an inheritor is obligated to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of each inherited property received or to be received by the inheritor among inherited property. Thus, a duty payment notice that has a specific effect of confirming each co-inheritors' tax liability is to divide and specify the amount of tax to be paid individually to each co-inheritors, and to impose the total amount of inheritance tax en bloc on the inheritor is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu10316, Dec. 21, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu387, May 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu673, May 26, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu415, Feb. 24, 1987).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case, which stated only the total inheritance tax amount and only the grounds for the calculation thereof, without stating the amount to be borne by the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors and the details of calculation thereof, is correct, and that even if the co-inheritors were notified to each co-inheritors, the whole imposition and notification methods are defective, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of duty payment notice to co-inheritors.

In this paper, it is not reasonable as an assertion that confusions the legal principles of imposition and collection, collection notice, and the absence of disposition and cancellation.

In addition, the precedents cited by the defendant concerning the existence of a disposition of imposition by a party member, or they are not appropriate in this case because they relate to a case before the amendment of the Inheritance Tax Act of December 21, 1982.

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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)