1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the validity of Article 50(6) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1660 of Dec. 31, 199, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), which is the basis for the taxation of this case, (hereinafter referred to as the "Article 50(1) and (3) and Article 61(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 6048 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the court below determined that the provision of this case provides that "the publicly notified land price" is "the publicly notified land price" as a supplementary method for the value of the land, and thus, in applying the provision of Article 61(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is more likely that the publicly notified land price is at the market price later than the market price of this case, and thus, it does not require that it be retroactively included in the market price of this case.

2. However, the main text of Article 61(1) of the Act provides that the price of the land shall be assessed by the publicly assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and the publicly assessed individual land price shall not be explicitly stipulated in the Presidential Decree concerning the publicly assessed individual land price. However, since the time necessary to investigate the current state of land to calculate the publicly assessed individual land price is not publicly announced on January 1 of each year, the public notice can be made after the lapse of a considerable period from the basic date. As such, in assessing inherited property, if the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent year is not publicly notified, the public notice shall be based on the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent year or on the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent year, which shall be assessed by applying the publicly notified individual land price of the previous year, so that the taxpayer or the tax authority may estimate the legal relations in advance or determine the value of the land at an early stage, it shall not be deemed that the publicly notified individual land price of the pertinent case is not an objective and reasonable market price in accordance with Article 28(2).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the provision of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)