The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The AA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

The Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu35452 Decided July 1, 2010

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The Plaintiff’s allegation in the grounds of appeal is an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s full power as a fact-finding court, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal in this case where it cannot be found that the lower judgment exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal No.1

Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the court may, if deemed necessary, conduct an ex officio examination of evidence, and determine facts that the parties did not claim," thereby allowing partial exceptions to the principle of pleading. Thus, in administrative litigation, the court may determine ex officio the facts that the parties did not claim clearly, based on the records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu3199, Jul. 10, 1992; 94Nu4820, Oct. 11, 1994).

In the same purport, the court below's deliberation and determination on the "value of the previous inherited property" under Article 30 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") based on the materials presented on the records, which were not disputed by the parties, is just, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading.

B. Ground of appeal No. 2

The short-term inheritance tax deduction system under Article 30 of the Act is to prevent the value of inherited property from significantly decreasing due to repeated inheritance in a short period of time. In case where inheritance is re-established within 10 years after the commencement of inheritance tax, the current inheritance tax shall be deducted from the calculated amount of inheritance tax (Article 30(1) of the Act), and in case of re-inherited within 10 years, the amount of tax to be deducted from the calculated amount of inheritance tax shall be calculated by multiplying the calculated amount of inheritance tax by the deduction rate equivalent to the calculated amount of inheritance tax of the previous taxable amount of inheritance tax, which shall be calculated by multiplying the calculated amount of inheritance tax of the previous taxable amount of inheritance tax by the ratio of the taxable amount of inheritance tax of the previous taxable amount of inheritance tax of the value of the previous inherited property (Article 30(2) of the Act), and "property value of re-inherited" means the amount calculated by multiplying the value of the previous inherited property by the ratio of the taxable amount of inheritance tax of the inheritance tax of the previous inheritance (Article 30(3) of the Act) of the Act).

In full view of the legislative intent of the short-term inheritance tax credit system, the overall structure of Article 30(1) through (3) of the Act, and the text of Article 30(3) of the Act, it is clear that the value of the previous inherited property under Article 30(3) of the Act, which is the basis of the calculation of the value of the inherited property, does not mean the value of the previous inherited property at the time of the inheritance.

In the same purport, the court below determined that the defendant's calculation of the value of the previous inherited property in order to calculate the value of the previous inherited property in the formula for calculating the amount of the previous inherited property at the time of the disposition of this case by the "value of the previous inherited property" is the overlapping calculation that is not consistent with the provisions of the law, and that the property value of the previous inherited property should be calculated by deducting the amount of the previous inherited property from the "value of the previous inherited property at the time of the inheritance" that is not multiplied by the inheritance value / the value of the previous inherited property at the time of the previous inheritance, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the "value of the previous inherited property" as stipulated by the law.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Im-amam-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am-am