[상속세부과처분취소][집32(2)특,200;공1984.5.15.(728)732]
A. Whether a notice of inheritance tax value or that of permission for annual payment by annual installments constitutes an inheritance tax imposition disposition (negative)
(b) Scope of obligations to be deducted from inherited property;
A. The taxation of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to have been conducted on the sole basis of the fact that the taxation authority notified the taxable value of the heir to the heir, or the notification of permission on the application for annual payment by the heir
B. The value of inherited property refers to a debt to be deducted from the value of inherited property is existing or determined at the time of commencement of the inheritance. Thus, if it is evident that the non-party working for an enterprise of the deceased is less than one year of continuous service at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case and is not subject to retirement allowance payment, the retirement allowance to be paid to him cannot be deemed as a debt existing or determined from the value of inherited property.
(a) Articles 18 and 20(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9700, Dec. 31, 1979);
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of Dong Busan District Office
Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu110 delivered on February 22, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Without imposing an inheritance tax notice, the taxation of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to have been imposed on the Plaintiff, who is the deceased non-party 1 (the date of death) on July 30, 1981, notified the taxable value of inheritance tax to his heir pursuant to Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 9700, Dec. 31, 1979) at the time of this case, or notified the inheritor of his application for annual payment by annual installments pursuant to Article 20 of the same Decree. According to the record, the Defendant, who is the taxation authority, notified the Plaintiff that the taxable value of inheritance tax would be KRW 189,572,178, and the taxable value of the said defense tax would be KRW 92,026,141, and the Plaintiff, upon receiving an application for annual payment of inheritance tax, was 00,000,0000,000 won, 208,000 won, 108,085,085,085,000.
Therefore, the decision of the court below on Oct. 2, 1981 as the object of the defendant's disposition of imposing the principal tax on Oct. 2, 1981 is justified, and therefore, it is not reasonable to criticize that the decision of the court below is not subject to the adjudication,
2. The debt to be deducted from the value of inherited property as stipulated in Article 4 (1) 3 of the Inheritance Tax Act refers to the debt existing or payable at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. According to the records, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 are clear at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case that the above deceased's business is not entitled to retirement allowances less than one year, so it cannot be viewed as a debt existing or confirmed in the value of inherited property. Thus, the decision of the court below to this purport is just and it cannot be viewed as a debt that can be deducted from the value of inherited property, and it is not possible to adopt the theory of law
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)