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

A. On June 23, 2008, the Plaintiff inherited from thisA, 1664/190 of each of the 37-13 square meters and 766 square meters of 00 ○○○○-dong, 37-13, and 37-31, and 766 square meters of the same 37-31, respectively (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the inheritance tax by calculating the appraised value of the instant land as zero (0) on the ground that the land was used as a public road. The Defendant calculated the appraised value of the instant land based on the officially announced value as of June 23, 2008, which was the date of commencing the inheritance (hereinafter “the date of commencing the inheritance of this case”), and additionally imposed KRW 91,424,990 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The instant land is designated as a Class 1 district unit planning zone and an area subject to permission for a land transaction contract for an urban development zone, and the ○○ City continuously calculated and publicly announced the officially announced land price of the instant land from 2003 to 2008 as follows.

D. On the other hand, on January 18, 2008, 000 ○○○○-dong 104 ○○-dong, 104 ○○-dong 298,187 m2,000, a public announcement was made to request the designation of an urban development zone for △△△-58 as ○○-dong 2008-58, and the public announcement was made on December 1 of the same year with regard to the above area as ○○-si ○○-si 2008-283, and the determination of the urban management planning and topographical drawings was made on September 23, 2009.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

At the time of the commencement of the instant inheritance, the instant land was used as a public road and could not be used and profit-making, and the Defendant did not impose property tax, etc. in consideration of this point. In light of the principle of substantial taxation, the instant land should be calculated as zero (0). As such, the instant disposition of taxation is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is the same as the entry in the attached statutes.

C. Determination

Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the value of inherited property shall, in principle, be based on the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance, and that the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance shall be based on the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance. However, the general rules of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 44. 84. 860, Sept. 3, 1999) provides that the assessed value shall be zero, except where the value of inherited property is recognized as property value, such as the market value at the time of commencement of inheritance, regardless of the category of the public register, if the inherited property is actually used by many unspecified persons, such appraised value shall not be deemed as property value, unless there is an exception that the market value at the time of commencement of inheritance is verified by the compensation price, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du360, Sept. 8, 199).

With respect to the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the instant land is land having property value as at the time of the commencement of the instant inheritance, and therefore, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of this case against the Plaintiff on the basis of the officially announced value of the instant land is lawful, since it is reasonable to deem that the instant land was land having property value as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, in full view of the following: (a) the public inspection was made with respect to 00 ○○○○○○, including the instant land, 104 ○○,000,000,000 104 298,187 square meters; and (b) such public announcement alone is sufficiently foreseeable that an urban development project will be implemented in the instant area, barring any special circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.