1. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the purchase price of this case was included in the inherited property except for the land of this case as of November 16, 2005 when the plaintiff reported the inheritance tax on May 16, 2005, and it was insufficient to recognize that the sale contract for the land of this case was concluded before May 20, 2005, because the land of this case was registered as the deceased's owner until May 20, 2005, which is the date of the deceased non-party 1's death (hereinafter "the deceased"). The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the purchase price of the land of this case should be viewed as the inherited property of this case, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the sale contract for the land of this case was concluded before May 20, 2005, which is the date of commencing the inheritance.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment by the court below cannot be said to have violated logical and empirical rules and the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. A. Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7580, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that the evaluation of inherited property shall be based on the “market price”, and Article 60(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18903, Jun. 30, 2005) provides that Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18903, Jun. 30, 2005) shall also be included in the “market price”. Meanwhile, Article 60(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where it is difficult to calculate the market price of inherited property, it shall be based on the value appraised by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65, taking into account

The term “market price” referred to in these provisions refers to the value generally established when free transactions take place between many and unspecified persons, i.e., an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction. Thus, even if there is a transactional example, if it cannot be deemed a price formed through a normal transaction that properly reflects the objective exchange value of inherited property, the market price can be calculated according to the supplementary assessment method prescribed in Article 60(3) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1229, Jul. 10, 1990, etc.). The burden of proving that there was no choice of supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to calculate the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8502, Sept. 26, 1997, etc.).

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land at the time of inheritance reaches KRW 10,303,349,98; (b) the subsequent appraised value was much higher than that of the instant land; (c) the deceased was offered from another person prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract; (d) but the deceased was refused for the reason that the price was less than KRW 6.5 billion; and (e) the special terms of the instant sales contract stipulated that the non-party company, the purchaser, bears the obligation to other creditors, such as the deceased, etc.; and (e) the sales price of the instant land cannot be deemed to be generally established if the transaction took place freely between many and unspecified persons; and (e) it is difficult to calculate the market price of the instant land; and therefore, (e) the Defendant may regard KRW 10,303,349,98 calculated by the officially assessed individual land price as the value of the instant land in accordance with the supplementary method of assessment as stipulated under Articles 61(1)1.

C. In light of the above provisions, 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 meaning of market price under the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and the burden of proof as to the requirement for application of complementary evaluation methods, as

3. A. The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ respective properties claimed by the Plaintiffs cannot be subject to a spouse’s inheritance deduction under Article 19 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, on the ground that there was no registration for division of inherited property in the name of Plaintiff 1, the deceased’s spouse, even though they succeeded to the instant land, not the purchase price claim under the instant sales contract, and that there was a lack of recognition that the said property was actually reverted to Plaintiff 1 even in the case of other financial assets alleged by the Plaintiffs.

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the court below's reasoning that in the case of the above financial assets, the burden of proving the subject of the spouse's inheritance deduction was partially inappropriate, the court below's conclusion that each of the above assets alleged by the plaintiffs cannot be subject to the spouse's inheritance deduction is acceptable. Thus, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of the spouse's inheritance deduction, which affected the conclusion

4. In calculating the inheritance tax base, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the court below erred by not deducting the deceased’s provisional attachment liability of KRW 400,000,00 and the compensation of KRW 1,192,628,500 paid by the deceased to the buyer of the property from the inherited property is an unlawful act, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

5. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)