[2] Whether the taxation authority’s imposition of tax without making a written decision on an application for payment by annual installments is unlawful (negative)

[3] Whether the disposal price of inherited property under Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act shall be deemed to be the disposal price of inherited property even where the decedent sold real estate, etc. and received only the down payment and intermediate payment

[4] Whether the disposal amount by type of inherited property under the proviso of Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act and the use of debt are less than 20/100 of the amount objectively unclear (affirmative)

[2] The liability for payment of inheritance tax is finally and conclusive by a taxation disposition that determines the tax base and amount of tax, and the permission for payment by annual installments does not change the tax liability and the payment period stipulated by the original disposition of imposition of inheritance tax, but rather gives the taxpayer the benefit of installment payment and the extension of the payment period to the extent that the national income does not harm the national income. Thus, even if the tax authority imposed a tax disposition without making a written decision on the application

[3] Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the type of property and at least 100 million won, and where the objective purpose of use is objectively unclear, such amount shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Paragraph (2) provides that "where an ancestor bears any of the following obligations, the purpose of use of which is unclear objectively, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree is unclear, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Paragraph (1) provides that "where an ancestor bears any obligation falling under any of the following subparagraphs, such an obligation shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Paragraph (1) provides that "Where the sum of the debts borne by an ancestor within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance exceeds 100 million won, it shall be deemed that taxation data or loan funds are not easy to capture inherited property or inherited property in cash, so that the ancestor is actually sold and sold, only the real estate payment.

[4] Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) provides that "any case prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996) means any case not falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That where the purpose of use is objectively unclear falls short of 20/10 of the amount of disposal of property or debt and the amount of disposal of inherited property is less than 100 million won, among the disposal amount and debt of each type of inherited property under Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996), it shall be objectively included in the taxable value of inherited property under the proviso to Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the same Act:

If the tax authority, in imposing inheritance tax on co-inheritors, entered the total amount of tax payable in a tax payment notice, the tax base, tax rate, and amount of tax deducted, which are the basis for the calculation thereof, as well as the amount of tax assessed on each co-inheritors’s inherited property possession ratio and the amount of tax to be paid by each co-inheritors calculated according to such ratio, and then issued a tax payment notice to co-inheritors indicated as a taxpayer on the tax payment notice, the tax payment notice shall have the effect of lawful imposition notice and collection notice (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu10316 delivered on December 21, 1993). If each tax payment notice is served on the person who filed the tax payment notice on inheritance tax, it shall have the effect of legitimate imposition notice and collection notice, and Article 25-2 (proviso) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 25-12 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 193, hereinafter the same).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the notice of imposition and collection in this case is lawful, and there is no violation of law in the imposition and collection disposition, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In inheritance tax, the liability for payment by annual installments is finally established by a taxation disposition that determines the tax base and amount of tax, and the permission for payment by annual installments does not change the tax liability and the payment period determined by the original disposition of imposition by inheritance tax, but rather gives the taxpayer the benefit of installment payment and the postponement of the payment period to the extent that the national income does not harm the national income (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da22311, Nov. 27, 2001). Thus, even if the tax authority imposed a tax disposition without making a written decision on the application by annual installments, the taxation disposition

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged on March 5, 1995 that the deceased non-party 1, who is the inheritee, sold the real estate of this case to non-party 2 on March 5, 1995, received the down payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 145,00,000 (hereinafter "the intermediate payment of this case") but died on March 30, 1995 without completing the registration of ownership transfer. The above non-party 1's liability for the lease deposit amount of KRW 626,00,000 (145,00,000 + 626,000,000 + 626,000,000,000 won) was not objectively clear, and determined that the above debt amount of KRW 164,013,108 should be included in the inherited real estate and should be included in the total amount of KRW 160,000,0000,000.

However, Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years before the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the category of property and at least 100 million won, and the use thereof shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4 if the Presidential Decree is objectively unclear." Article 7-2 (2) provides that "where an ancestor bears an obligation falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the use thereof shall be objectively unclear, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that "where the ancestor bears an obligation within two years before the commencement date of inheritance, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within ten years before the commencement date of inheritance tax or loan money by cash or inheritance, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 10-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and it shall be objectively prescribed in Article 17-2 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the intermediate payment of this case should be included in the taxable value on the premise that it falls under the obligation prescribed in Article 7-2 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and that all of the above KRW 164,013,108 should be included in the taxable value, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)