[상속세등부과처분취소][공1997.1.15.(26),235]
The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of incomplete hearing as to whether the purpose of use prescribed in Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act falls under "property which is objectively unclear."
Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990), the purpose of the provision is to prevent the decedent from unfairly concealing his/her property before the decedent's birth, and to reduce the inheritance tax by offsetting his/her deposit claim against his/her obligation of the company that he/she operated, and if the decedent contributed to the property for the company by offsetting his/her own deposit claim against his/her obligation of the company, there is a cause of contribution, such as a donation or indemnity agreement, between the decedent and his/her company, so it cannot be readily concluded that the purpose of the contribution is objectively obvious until the relationship between the decedent and his/her company revealed the cause of contribution to the property between the decedent and his/her company (if the relationship between the decedent and his/her company is revealed, whether there is property to be included in the taxable value
Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)
(1) A person who is not a party to the lawsuit shall not be deemed to have any other party to the lawsuit.
The Head of Dong Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu18209 delivered on September 27, 1995
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 300,000,000 won of the fixed deposit amount of KRW 309,937,701, which was the non-party 309,937,701, which was the deceased's predecessor, was a special offsetting against the obligation to the above bank by the non-party 1's national secretary, who was actually managed by the above deceased, was not included in the taxable value of inherited property, since the non-party 300,000,000, which was disposed of as the withdrawal as above, was objectively obvious of its purpose and should not be included in the taxable value of inherited property.
However, the purport of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) prevents the deceased from unfairly concealing his/her property before his/her birth and reducing his/her inheritance tax. Meanwhile, if the deceased contributed his/her own deposit claim to the above company by offsetting his/her obligation against his/her loans owed by the National Library Co., Ltd., the deceased and the above company have a cause of contribution, such as a donation or demand agreement, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the purpose of the contribution is objectively obvious until the relationship between the deceased and the above company revealed the cause of contribution to the property between the deceased and the above company (if the relationship between the deceased and the property contribution was revealed, whether the property to be included in the taxable value of the inherited property should be determined again).
Nevertheless, the court below judged that the purpose of the withdrawal of time deposit is objectively clear solely for the reasons indicated in its holding. Therefore, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on inclusion in the taxable value of inherited property, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out
2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)