[2] An excessive amount excluded from the “reported tax base” under Article 20-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act

[3] Where a person liable to pay inheritance tax has reported donated property within five years after filing a return within the statutory due date of return, whether the amount of the omitted gift tax should be deducted again in calculating the amount of the tax credit of inheritance tax (negative)

[4] In a case where an inheritor filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax at the time of filing an inheritance tax return, whether a claim for refund of capital gains tax should be reported as an inherited property even if the claim for refund is not confirmed at the time

[5] Where the deposit and withdrawal are continued within two years before the commencement date of inheritance, the person who bears the burden of proving that the method of calculating the disposal value to be included in the taxable value of inherited property is the amount created separately regardless of the amount withdrawn (=the tax authority)

[2] The "reported tax base" under Article 20-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994) is excluded from the amount of excessive return due to differences in the appraisal of inherited property and errors in the application of various deductions.

[3] Tax credit for reported property is based on the tax base reported by the taxpayer, and according to Article 20-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994), "10% of the amount calculated by subtracting the following amount from the amount included in the reported tax amount." Thus, where a taxpayer of inheritance tax filed a return within the statutory due date of return but failed to return donated property within five years to be added, the amount of gift tax for donated property omitted is not included in the reported tax amount. Thus, in calculating the reported tax amount, the amount of gift tax for donated property omitted shall not be deducted again from the reported tax amount.

[4] Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) and Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082 of Dec. 31, 1993) provide the method of appraisal on the premise that the rights during a lawsuit are included in inherited property. Thus, if the heir files a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax at the time of filing an inheritance tax, the heir shall report his/her claim for refund of capital gains tax as inherited property. The reason why the claim for refund is not confirmed at the time of filing the inheritance tax cannot be said to be justifiable in filing the report.

[5] In cases where a deposit withdrawn within 2 years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance pursuant to Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), the remaining amount excluding the sum of the deposited amount after withdrawal from each deposit account of the decedent shall be considered as the disposal value, but in cases where it is confirmed that the amount of deposit is a separately created amount regardless of the amount of withdrawal, such amount shall not be excluded from the withdrawn amount, but the burden of proof shall be borne by the tax authority.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the defendant imposed the inheritance tax in this case on the heir including the plaintiff, and imposed the reduction and the increase on seven occasions. The original and the third correction dispositions on the plaintiff were the final increase due to the 4th correction dispositions, and the third and fourth correction dispositions on the remaining heirs other than the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "batch inheritors") were the final increase due to the 7th correction dispositions. In this case, the plaintiff's initial and third correction dispositions on the plaintiff were the final increase due to the 4th correction dispositions, and the third and fourth correction dispositions on the remaining inheritors were all incorporated into the 7th correction dispositions, which are the final increase and decrease dispositions, and the third and fourth correction dispositions on the plaintiff were all extinguished due to the 7th correction dispositions, which are the final increase and decrease dispositions on the plaintiff, and therefore the procedural defects on the extinguished previous dispositions are not succeeded to the existing final increase dispositions on the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's ground of appeal for final appeal cannot be accepted without examining each of the above procedural defects.

B. In full view of the evidence adopted in the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant notified only the total amount of tax on a tax payment notice, found that the defendant did not separately notify the specific amount of tax for each heir while proceeding with the court below, and immediately notified the heir of the list of inheritance tax and joint and several liability taxpayers who are to pay the specific amount of tax by heir or testamentary donee. In light of the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of tax payment notice.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff

In full view of the evidence adopted in the judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant issued the fourth correction disposition to the plaintiff on March 11, 2002, which is within the exclusion period of the inheritance tax imposition right, and held that the fourth correction disposition is legitimate as it is possible to do so, regardless of the completion of the extinctive prescription of the collection right, before the exclusion period of the imposition right expires. The above fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription and exclusion period as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3

A. The “reported tax base” under Article 20-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994) excludes the excessive return due to the difference in the appraisal of inherited property and the error in the application of various deductions (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4860, Oct. 30, 2001, etc.).

According to the above legal principles and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the tax base reported by the court below after deducting the excessive appraised value of buildings due to the difference in the appraisal of inherited property from the tax base reported by the plaintiff, and the excessive reported amount due to the error in the application of the deduction amount, it is reasonable to calculate the reported tax amount based on this, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, in filing an inheritance tax return on May 12, 1994, Nonparty 1, the wife of the inheritee, added 2,319,80,000 won to the value of donated property prior to the commencement of inheritance, and deducted various deductions, and applied the inheritance tax base to KRW 4,073,668,00,000, and applied the tax rate of Article 14 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of December 31, 1993), the inheritance tax return amount (calculated tax amount) to KRW 2,018,517,00,00, which was calculated by deducting the already paid gift tax amount to KRW 1,272,892,00,000 from the reported gift tax amount to KRW 745,625,52,540,000, which was calculated by deducting the reported amount of gift tax from the reported amount of gift tax amount to KRW 1,671,707,81,700,7,000,7,70000.

However, the tax credit for reported property is based on the tax base reported by the taxpayer, and according to Article 20-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994), "10% of the amount calculated by subtracting the following amount from the amount included in the reported tax amount." If the taxpayer filed a return within the statutory due date of return but failed to return donated property within five years to be added, the amount of the gift tax for the donated property omitted was not included in the reported tax amount. Thus, in calculating the amount of the reported tax credit, the amount of the gift tax for the donated property omitted shall not be deducted again from the reported tax amount.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on deduction of the reported tax amount, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 4

In full view of the evidence adopted in the judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant imposed gift tax on the donated property to be included in the inherited property of this case on the inheritor including the plaintiff, and recognized the fact other than the additional tax, and held that if the circumstances are the same, the above donated property should be included in the inherited property value, which is the basis for calculating the additional tax on negligent tax returns. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no

5. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 5 and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 3

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court determined that the amount of the previously paid gift tax to be deducted in calculating the determined amount, which is the basis of calculation of the erroneous payment for unfaithful payment, is not KRW 2,402,075,662 for the first time paid by the Plaintiff, but is KRW 1,502,075,662 for the last time paid by the Plaintiff. Such determination by the lower court is justifiable in accordance with relevant statutes, and there is no

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the refund of the national tax refund refund due to the revocation of the disposition of imposition on the capital gains tax imposed on the deceased by the heir including the plaintiff, from November 13, 1993 to September 13, 1995, which was 2 years after the date of commencing the inheritance, was determined. The first refund of the national tax was unable to report the return of the inheritance tax. As such, the portion for which the first refund of the national tax refund was determined after 6 months from the date of becoming aware of the commencement of the inheritance, which is the deadline for filing the inheritance tax return, is not subject to the inheritance tax return or the revised return, and thus, it cannot be criticize the heir on the ground that this portion constitutes a justifiable cause for not imposing the additional return on negligent tax returns, and thus, it is correct to exclude it

However, Article 10 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) and Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082 of Dec. 31, 1993) provide the method of evaluation on the premise that the rights during a lawsuit are included in inherited property. Even according to the factual relations determined by the court below, the heir, including the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the above disposition of imposition of capital gains tax at the time of filing the inheritance tax. Thus, the heir, including the plaintiff, should have reported the above claim for national tax refund as inherited property, and the reason that the above claim for national tax refund was not finalized at the time of filing the inheritance tax of this case does not constitute a justifiable reason for failure to file the report.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of additional tax on negligent tax returns, which excludes the amount of 404,901,497 won from the tax base to be reported, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

C. The purport of the additional payment for inheritance tax is to induce the taxpayer to pay in good faith and secure the performance of his duty to pay, and to pay the amount equivalent to the additional payment for the unpaid tax payment by the due date for payment, considering that he received financial benefits. As seen earlier, unless there is any justifiable reason in the failure to report on the national tax refund of this case, the court below's inclusion of the above national tax refund in the inherited property value for calculating the additional payment for unfaithful tax in light of related Acts and subordinate statutes and the above legal principles is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

6. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

A. In full view of the evidence adopted in its judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the unpaid wages of employees who worked for the king operated by the decedent at the time of the commencement of the inheritance were 35,921,250 won and the estimated amount of retirement allowance was 102,917,140 won, and held that the above amount should be deducted from the taxable value of the inheritance property of this case as an obligation of the decedent. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and determination are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence

B. In full view of the evidence adopted in its judgment, the court below determined that the first spawn was unfair to include the two 18,000,000 won in the taxable value of the inheritance tax of this case, since the spawn was first spawn (2 1974, 1986, 1986, 1987, and 2 197,000 among them was sold to Nonparty 2 around October 6, 1993, which was before the commencement of the inheritance because the 1974 was not operated. In light of the records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there was no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

7. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

In addition to the taxable value of inherited property, pursuant to Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), the deposit withdrawn within 2 years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property, the remaining amount excluding the sum of the deposit withdrawn from each deposit account of the decedent, after withdrawal, shall be considered as the disposal value: Provided, That where it is confirmed that the deposit amount is a separately created amount regardless of the amount withdrawn, the amount is not excluded from the amount withdrawn, but the burden of proof shall be borne by the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5863, Dec. 26, 2003, etc.)

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that there is no disposal property in relation to the withdrawal money from a financial institution, on the ground that the defendant did not have any assertion or proof as to the existence of the amount separately created regardless of the withdrawal amount, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the inclusion of the withdrawal money in the inherited property and the burden of proof.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)