[2] Where an ancestor bears a joint and several liability for a third party at the time of commencement of the inheritance, or is liable for a surety as a surety, the standard for determining whether the amount of such liability can be deducted from the value of the inherited property and the burden of proof (=taxpayer)

[2] The amount of an inheritee's obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property refers to the amount of obligation that the decedent is deemed to have to have to have been ultimately borne by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance. Thus, in case where the decedent bears joint and several liability for a third party or is liable for the surety's obligation, the principal obligor is in insolvent, and when it is deemed that the obligor has no possibility of being repaid even if the principal obligor exercises his right to reimbursement against the principal obligor, the amount of such obligation may be deducted from the value of inherited property. In such case, whether the principal obligor is not in an impossible condition at the time of commencement of the inheritance, generally, there is no possibility of receiving a loan differently as the principal obligor continues to have been in a considerable period of time due to the commencement of the procedure such as bankruptcy, composition, corporate reorganization, or compulsory execution, or the execution of punishment, etc., and there is no intention to renew the obligation, and on the other hand, it is reasonable to view that there is a special reason to dispute the taxable value of inherited property.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and excluded the amount that is short of the tax base to be reported due to the difference in the value of the inheritance tax (in the case of erroneous payment, the amount that is short of the tax base to be paid due to the difference in the appraised value) under the provisions of Articles 78 (1) and 78 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6048, Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") from the category of "evaluation value" under the provisions of Article 80 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15971, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") from the category of appraisal value under the provisions of Article 80 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15971, Dec. 6, 2000).

Furthermore, according to the records, the plaintiffs filed an application for rectification of inheritance tax by applying the appraisal value (4,189,289,000 won) of the above eight parcels of real estate based on the individual land price (4,36,67,820 won) to the above eight parcels of real estate, and the defendant assessed the above parcels of real estate as the individual land price, and the court assessed the above parcels of land with the appraisal value (4,118,010,000 won) as a result, so that the above appraisal value (4,189,289,000 won) may not be reported because of the difference in the value of inherited property (4,460,867,380 won). Thus, if the plaintiffs reported the above appraisal value to the above eight parcels of real estate due to the difference in the value of inherited property under Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the plaintiffs' return and payment of additional taxes for unfaithfully paid additional taxes should not be reported because of the difference in value of inherited property (4,562,467,039 won).

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below, based on the evidence in its reasoning, found that on October 15, 1996, the deceased non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1, who was the deceased non-party 2, decided to jointly lease the rental deposit amount of 95,00,000 won from the non-party 2 in the Yongsan-gu ( Address 2 omitted) in the Yongsan-gu (No. 309, 1401, 300,000, and paid the full amount of the lease deposit to the above non-party 2. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to view that the above lease deposit was actually borne by the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3 to belong to them. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the deceased's claim for the above lease deposit amount of 1/2,50,000 won against the above non-party 2 is included in the inherited property. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground for appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the deceased's debt should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is difficult to recognize the fact that the deceased bears the above debt. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The value of inherited property refers to an obligation of which it is deemed certain for an ancestor to perform as a final obligation by an ancestor at the time of commencement of the inheritance. Thus, in cases where an ancestor bears a joint and several liability by an ancestor for a third party or is liable as a surety to secure another's property at the time of commencement of the inheritance, if the principal obligor is in an insolvent condition, and it is deemed that the obligor cannot perform his/her obligation, and even if the principal obligor exercises his/her right to demand reimbursement against the principal obligor, the amount of obligation can be deducted from the value of inherited property. In such cases, if the principal obligor is not in an insolvent condition at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it is generally possible for the principal obligor to receive a loan differently because the situation exceeds his/her obligation continues for a considerable period of time due to bankruptcy, composition, corporate reorganization or compulsory execution, or execution of punishment, etc., and it is reasonable for the obligor to claim that this reason has an objective effect on the taxable value of inherited property, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the obligor has a special reason for 196.196).

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the debts of 36,265,390 won (US$ 40,000) financed by the plaintiff 2 and 5 from the New York branch and the deceased were jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff, since the above plaintiffs did not have any income source as a student at the time of the above loan, and therefore the above debts should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property because they did not have any income source, the above debts should also be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property. In light of the records, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs cannot be recognized as a joint and several surety as a principal debtor, and it is difficult to find the above facts that the above plaintiffs had special circumstances. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts against the rules of experience and rules

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that all of the above obligations should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is the fact that the deceased bears the above obligations. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of experience and rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles against the rules of experience and rules of evidence.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)