The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2-1,2, and 3, and there are no other objections.

가. 소외 안ㅇㅇ가 1992. 12. 23. 사망하였는데, 그 처인 원고 황ㅇㅇ와 그 자녀들인 나머지 원고들이 별지 출연재산 목록 기재의 부동산과 현금(이하 이 사건 출연재산이라 한다)을 포함한 망인의 재산을 공동상속하였다.

나. 원고들은 1993. 6. 22. 상속신고서를 제출하면서 이 사건 출연재산을 재단법인 ㅇㅇ장학문화재단(이하 ㅇㅇ장학재단이라 한다)에 출연하였으므로 상속세법(1990. 12. 31. 법률제4283호로 개정되고 1993. 12. 31. 법률 제4662호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 법이라 한다) 제8조의 2 제6항 에 따라 상속세과세가액에 산입되지 아니한다고 보아 이를 제외하는 등 상속재산가액이 도합 금 7,467,635,977원이라 신고하였으나, 피고는 이 사건 출연재산도 상속세과세대상에 산입되어야 한다고 보는 등 상속재산을 재조사하여 상속재산가액을 도합 금 9,264,644,745원으로 보고 추가납부할 상속세 금 4,739,502,538원을 산출한 다음, 1994. 5. 2. 이를 원고들의 상속지분비율에 따라 나누어 청구취지 기재와 같이 원고들에게 각 부과(이하 이 사건 부과처분이라 한다)하였다.

C. Although the plaintiffs filed a review and a request for trial on the above disposition, all of them were dismissed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

피고는 위 처분사유와 관계법령을 들어 이 사건 부과처분이 적법하다고 주장함에 대하여, 원고들은, 첫째 법 제8조의2 제6항 은 포괄위임금지원칙, 조세법률주의원칙에 위배되어 위헌이고, 둘째 법 제8조의2 제1항 , 법시행령(1993. 12. 31. 대통령령 제14082호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제3조의 2 제1항 제1호 의 규정에 의하면 피상속인이 공익법인의설립.운영에관한법률의 적용을 받는 공익법인(이하 공익법인이라 한다)이 운영하는 공익사업에 출연하는 경우에는 그 공익사업과 특별한 관계에 있는 자가 이사 현원의 3분의 1을 초과하지 아니하면 출연재산을 상속세과세가액에 불산입하게 되어 있는바, 상속인이 공익법인이 운영하는 공익사업에 출연하는 경우에도 피상속인이 출연하는 경우와 차별할 합리적인 이유가 없으므로 법시행령 제3조의 2 제1항 과 다른 요건을 정한 법시행령 제3조의2 제13항 은 무효라 할 것이고, 한편 망 안ㅇㅇ의 상속인들 중 원고 안ㅇㅇ 1인만이 ㅇㅇ장학재단의 이사이므로 법시행령 제3조의 2 제1항 에 의하여 이 사건 출연재산은 상속세과세가액에서 제외되어야 하고, 따라서 이 사건 부과처분 중 원고들이 정당하게 납부하여야 할 청구취지 기재의 각 금원을 초과하는 부분의 취소를 구한다는 취지의 주장을 하고 있다.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Article 2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the decedent has a domicile in the Republic of Korea, inheritance tax shall be imposed on the whole of the inherited property (including property bequeathed by the decedent and donated property becoming effective due to the death of the decedent).

(2) Article 8-2 (1) of the Act provides that the value of the property enumerated in the following subparagraphs shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes: Provided, That the same shall not apply where all or part of the profits accruing from the property belongs to the heir, the decedent or his relatives, and list the property contributed to religious business, charity business, academic business or other public business (hereinafter referred to as the "public business") operated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 3-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the term "public business operated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" refers to public business not falling under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 8-2 (1) 1 of the Act provides that the term "in case of a public-service corporation, the value of the property shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes; Article 8-2 (1) of the Act provides that the heir shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes of a corporation (in case of a public-service corporation, the person in special relationship shall be deemed to be the heir under subparagraph 1 through 2 (3).

(1) As to the Plaintiffs’ petition of unconstitutionality

Article 8-2 (6) of the Act provides that "The plaintiffs shall not include in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes the property of which the heir contributed to a public service business under subparagraph 1 of Article 8-2 of the Act in such a manner as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." This provision provides that "The plaintiffs shall not include in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes." Since a blank delegation is made in such a way as prescribed by the Presidential Decree to comprehensively distinguish whether or not to include in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes should be made, it is invalid in violation of the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution and the principle of no taxation without law under Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution."

③ Article 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that Presidential Decrees may be issued with regard to the matters delegated to a specific scope by setting the specific scope of delegation. The specification of delegation scope and the requirement for clarity must vary depending on the type and nature of the regulated object. In particular, in the laws and regulations that may directly restrict or infringe on the fundamental rights of the people, such as punishment laws or tax laws, the requirement for clarity of delegation should be strengthened, and the requirements for delegation and its scope should be more strictly limited than the cases of general performance administrative laws and regulations. However, when it is anticipated that various facts or factual relations will change from time to time, the requirement for clarity of delegation should be mitigated.

④ However, Article 2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that when an ancestor has a domicile in Korea, the inheritance tax shall be imposed on the whole of the inherited property (including property bequeathed by the decedent and property becoming effective due to the death of the decedent) and that all of the inherited property shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes.

⑤ Meanwhile, Article 8-2(1) and (6) of the Act provides that, as an exception to Article 2(1) of the Act, the property contributed by the decedent or the heir is excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the function of the public works operated by the contributed property is the public function that should be performed by the State or a local government with the funds raised through the national tax. Since it is conducted by the private organization instead of the funds raised by the private organization, it should be supported by the State unless it is exploited as an alternative method of taxation of inheritance taxes, it is reasonable to exclude the contributed property from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes and eliminate the burden of inheritance taxes. However, it is not possible to make it reasonable to eliminate the burden of inheritance taxes by clearly changing the portion of the contributed property through the contribution of the public works. Therefore, the strict restriction requirements and the ex post facto management system on the contributed property is needed.

(1) Article 2(1) of the Act provides that "The inheritance tax shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes," and Article 8-2(1)1 of the Act provides that "property contributed to a public project under the provision of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes," and Article 2(1) of the Act provides that "property contributed to a public project under the provision of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes," and Article 2(1)1 of the Act provides that "property contributed to a public project under the provision of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and the property contributed to a public project shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and the nature of the inheritance tax and the purpose of the system that excludes the property contributed to a public project from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, as the property contributed to a public project by an heir shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes."

① The Plaintiffs’ assertion that Article 8-2(1) of the Act provides that the main text declares the principle of non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes of property contributed by an ancestor to a public-service business, and that all or part of the profits derived from such property belongs to the heir, the decedent, or his/her relatives, shall be excluded. The application of the exceptional provision under the proviso is that a person with a special relationship with the pertinent public-service business exceeds 1/3 of the current number of directors of a public-service corporation in which the pertinent public-service business is conducted, or has the authority to decide on appointment of directors or other important matters concerning the business operation, and Article 8-2(6) of the Act provides that the proviso of Article 8-2(1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where an heir contributes inherited property to a public-service business in the latter part. In light of the foregoing, Article 8-2(1) of the Act provides that the latter part of the Act provides that the principle of non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes of the relevant public-service business shall be construed differently from Article 3(1).

② However, comprehensively interpreting the main sentence and proviso of Article 8-2(1) and subparagraph 1 of the Act and Article 3-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the main sentence and subparagraph 1 of Article 8-2(1) of the Act list the property contributed to the public works operated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in cases where the property is excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. Article 3-2(1)1 and subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act define the public works operated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 8-2(1)1 of the Act, which excludes cases where the person with a special relationship with the public works in question exceeds 1/3 of the current number of directors of the public-service corporation in which the public works are performed, or has the authority to decide on the appointment of directors or other important matters concerning the business operation. The proviso of Article 8-2(1) of the Act provides that all or part of the profits accruing from the property belongs to the heir, decedent or his relatives. In light of the type and contents of this provision, it cannot be interpreted as an exception.

"③ 또한 법 제8조의 2 제1항 은 피상속인이 공익사업에 출연하는 경우를 적용대상으로 하고, 법 제8조의 2 제6항 은 상속인이 공익사업에 출연하는 경우를 적용대상으로 하는 것인바, 후자의 경우는 전자의 경우와 달리 상속인들간의 협의분할 등의 방법을 통하여 상속세 탈세 등의 수단으로 이용될 수 있는 소지가 많으므로, 양자의 경우 상속세과세가액불산입의 예외사유를 서로 달리 규정할 합리적인 이유가 있다 할 것이므로, 법 제8조의 2 제6항 , 법시행령 제3조의 2 제13항 제1,2호 에 따라 상속인이 공익사업에 출연할 때 상속세과세가액에 산입하지 아니하는 경우는상속인의 의사(상속인이 2인 이상인 경우에는 상속인들의 합의에 의한 의사)에 따라 상속받은 재산을 법 제20조 제1항 의 규정에 의한 신고기한내에 출연할 것'과,출연한 상속인이 출연받은 공익사업을 하는 법인의 이사가 되지 않거나 이사의 선임 기타 사업운영에 관한 중요사항을 결정할 권한이 없을 것'에 해당하는 경우로 엄격하게 해석하여야 할 것이다(그 결과 피상속인이 출연한 경우와 비교하면, 출연기간의 제한이 있는 점, 공익사업을 하는 법인이 공익법인인 경우에도 상속인 중 한명이라도 이사로 되어서는 안되나, 이사제한 범위가 특별관계에 있는 자를 모두 포함하지 아니하고 상속인에게만 한정되는 점 등에 있어서 달라지게 된다).",④ 그런데, 갑제4, 5호증, 갑제6호증의 1 내지 3, 갑제8호증의 1,2,3, 갑제10호증의 각 기재 및 변론의 전취지에 의하면, 원고들은 피상속인 안ㅇㅇ가 사망한 후인 1993. 3. 17. ㅇㅇ시 교육감으로부터 민법 제32조 및 공익법인의설립.운영에관한법률 제4조 에 의거 ㅇㅇ장학재단의 설립허가를 받았으며, 피상속인 안ㅇㅇ의 상속인들인 원고들 중 장남인 원고 안ㅇㅇ가 그 이사장이 된 사실, 원고들은 같은 날 상호 합의하에 이 사건 출연재산을 ㅇㅇ장학재단에 출연하기로 하고, 같은 달 29. 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, ㅇㅇ장학재단의 임원은 이사장을 포함한 이사 10인, 감사 2인이며(정관 제16조), 제4조에 규정한 사업을 전담하게 하기 위하여 이사장은 이사회의 의결을 거쳐 이사 중 1인을 상임이사로 임명할 수 있는데, 상임이사의 업무분장에 관하여는 이사장이 정하고(정관 제17조), 이사장은 이 법인을 대표하고 법인의 업무를 통리하는(정관 제22조) 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 인정사실에 의하면 비록 원고들이 이 사건 출연재산을 공익사업을 하는 공익법인에 출연하였다 하더라도, 원고 안ㅇㅇ가 ㅇㅇ장학재단의 이사장으로 취임함으로써, 법시행령 제3조의 2 제13항 제2호 의 출연한 상속인이 출연받은 공익사업을 하는 법인의 이사가 되거나 이사의 선임 기타 사업운영에 관한 중요사항을 결정할 권한이 있는 경우에 해당한다 할 것이고, 따라서 이 사건 출연재산은 상속세과세가액불산입의 대상이 되지 아니하므로 원고들의 위 주장은 이유없고, 이 사건 부과처분은 적법하다 할 것이다.

(3) 원고들은 다시, 원고 안ㅇㅇ를 제외한 나머지 원고들은 ㅇㅇ장학재단의 이사로 되지 아니하였으므로 이 사건 출연재산 중 나머지 원고들의 지분에 해당하는 부분은 상속세과세가액에 불산입되어야 한다고 주장한다.

Article 8-2 (6) of the Act and Article 3-2 (13) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that "where one of the requirements for non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes is contributed by the heir to a public-service business, the inherited property shall be contributed within the reporting period under Article 20 (1) of the Act, if one of the requirements for non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes is not less than two heirs, the property excluded from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under Article 8-2 (6) of the Act shall be determined by the unanimous agreement of the heir, and where a part of the heir is contributed, it shall be excluded from the inheritance tax. Therefore, if there are not less than two heirs, one of them shall be interpreted as falling under the category of non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the above argument by the plaintiffs is groundless (in light of Article 3-2 (13) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the non-taxation in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes shall not be included in the non-taxation amount of inheritance taxes under Article 3-13 (2).4).

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.