The claimant'sO,OO,OO,OO, andOO (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") did not report the inheritance tax until 89.11 December 11, 2009, when it was known that the inheritance was commenced, after the inheritance was succeeded to the 661m2 and the 93m2 of the OOOOO's site in the same city as the OOOOOOOO's 661m2 in Gyeonggi-do, as the OOOOO's death other than the 89.6.12.

The disposal agency assessed inherited property according to the officially announced value at the time of the commencement of inheritance tax, and assessed at 348,94,720 won, which is the standard market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and notified the claimant of 1,097,373,190 won and the same defense tax of 182,895,530 won (the inheritance tax of 85,065,870 won and the defense tax of 14,177,640 won and the tax of 182,895,530 won (the tax of 92.8.17.17.14,177,67,640 won and the tax of 14,177,640 won and the tax of 375,000,000 won and 380,000 won as the actual transaction price at the time of the commencement of inheritance.

The claimant appealed against this and filed a request for adjudication on December 13, 93.9.10

2. Opinions of the applicant and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

(a) Request;

① Since the claimant, at the time of the transfer of the real estate at issue, made an assessment of the value of the real estate at issue as the actual transaction value at the time of the disposition, and revised the inheritance tax originally determined at August 5, 93. This would have been extinguished and corrected by the absorption theory, the claim is legitimate if the disposition is made within 60 days from the date of the disposition of correction. In addition, Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is the evaluation provision of inherited property, was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, which is the evaluation provision of inherited property at the time of the disposition of this case at the time of the disposition of this case, is unreasonable

(2) Among inherited property, 93 square meters of the site of OOOOO in Gyeonggi-do (the land category of 93.2.1 is changed to a road) is confirmed from 82 years to 13507-89 (93.2.2) of the Hanam-si, Hanam-si, which is actually used as a road. In addition, even though it is not possible to exercise property rights, the disposition authority is deemed as a site and it is unreasonable to impose tax by adding up the value of inherited property

③ Although the actual transaction value of the pertinent real estate disposed of before the commencement of inheritance was imposed by including KRW 375,00,000 in the taxable value of inherited property, it is the assertion that the decedent was responsible for heavy medical expenses due to the occurrence of workplace cancer from 83.2, and disposed of in order to dispose of the debts prior to the commencement of inheritance, it should be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property.

(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service asserts that the value of inherited property should be evaluated as at the time of commencing inheritance because Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. However, since the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality becomes effective after the date on which the decision was made, there is no error in the initial disposition and the time limit for appeal becomes final and conclusive.

② The major issue is that disposal of inherited property is final and conclusive at the time of the original decision, such as opinion ①, and thus, the examination is omitted.

③ The disposition agency included KRW 363,500,000,000, which was the disposal value of the pertinent real estate, after subtracting KRW 11,50,000,000, which was confirmed by the user, in the taxable value of inherited property. The claimant presented the use of the said amount for the medical expenses of the inheritee, but the claimant presented the use of KRW 5,698,50,000,00, which was spent before the disposal of the pertinent real estate, but there is no error in the initial disposal of the said amount included in the taxable value of inherited property because it is unclear.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

(1) A disposition made to correct this case by evaluating the value of the inherited property at the time of the initial determination of inheritance tax and imposing it at the time of the assessment thereof is appropriate.

(2) Whether the appraised value of the inherited property used as roads is reasonable.

(3) Whether the disposed property may be included in the taxable value of inherited property within one year before the commencement of inheritance.

B. As to the issue ①

(1) Relevant statutes

According to Article 9(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act before amendment, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and the value of inherited property which is not reported under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act or omitted from the report shall be the larger of the value assessed under paragraph (1) and the appraised value at the time of the imposition of the inheritance tax.

(2) According to this case’s factual relations, the disposition agency confirmed that: (a) the value of inherited property among the inherited property of the decedent’s OOO’s inherited property is KRW 1,178,985,102, which is the appraised value at the time of imposition; and (b) the real property transferred within one year was assessed and disposed of at least KRW 348,94,720, which is the standard market value at the time of transfer; (c) the real property at issue was subsequently verified to be KRW 375,00,000, and that the real transaction value of the real property at issue was additionally notified as KRW 17,163,480, and KRW 2,860,580, which is the defense tax

(3) According to Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the law or provisions of the law decided as unconstitutional shall lose its effect from the date on which the decision is made. However, the law or provisions of the law relating to punishment shall lose its effect retroactively. On December 24, 92, Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act violates the principle of no taxation without the law and equality stipulated by the Constitution, and thereby, thereby infringing on the property right of the people without any reasonable reason under the name of the State where the right to impose taxes is exercised. Thus, this decision is made in violation of the provision on property rights under the

(4) Although the law or provision of the law, which was decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, should, in principle, be null and void retroactively in the past, the effect of the law or provision of the law, except for the provisions of the law or the law, should be invalidated retroactively from the date of the decision, should only be invalidated in the future from the viewpoint of legal stability to stabilize existing legal relations formed on the basis of invalid law or the provisions of the law. In this case, the initial disposition was made on January 4, 92, and the disposition for increase and decrease was made on August 5, 93, but the initial disposition was assessed and taxed as at the time of imposing inherited property in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the initial disposition, at the time of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court, and the initial disposition imposed on January 4, 92, which was before the decision of unconstitutionality, is legitimate under the provisions of the law, and thus, the initial disposition that was lawfully assessed at the time of imposing the inherited property after the decision of unconstitutionality cannot be seen in light of the purport of the provision of the provision of the law.

C. For the key issue ②

Under the Inheritance Tax Act, inherited property is an article with economic value that can be liquidated in money. Among inherited property, 93 square meters of the site of OOOOOOOOOOOO in Gyeonggi-do was pointed out and publicly announced as an urban planning road in 78.3.24, 78.3.24, and since 82, it was actually being used as a road. However, the issue is that the land category was paid as a site at the time of commencement of the inheritance and there is a rise in land grade until the commencement of the inheritance. The issue is that there is property value in that the land category was already paid as a site at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and there is a rise in land grade until the commencement of the inheritance. However, it is not possible to compensate for the construction after obtaining authorization for the implementation of the urban planning facility project from the Minister of Construction and Transportation in accordance with the financial situation in the future (Article 468-30-1013, February 28, 94).

D. On the issue No. 3

(Gu) Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that “where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year from the commencement of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated on the basis of the types of property and the amount is at least 50,000,000 won, or if the ancestor bears an obligation, the total amount shall be at least 50,000,000 won, which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the use thereof is not objectively unclear.”

The claimant argued that the real estate at issue should be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property because the claimant disposed of at least KRW 375,00,000,50,000, which was the first month prior to the commencement of inheritance, because it was caused by a lot of debt incurred by the ancestor in the workplace cancer from 83.2 to the commencement of inheritance. However, since the debtor's debt was verified at the time of taxation and deducted, if the claimant repaid the debt borne for the preparation of medical expenses due to the disposal price of the real estate at issue, it is difficult to accept the claimant's claim purport that the details of the medical expenses and the existence of the debt incurred due to the medical expenses incurred by the ancestor, even though it is necessary to prove the existence of such expenses and the debt incurred by the decedent

Therefore, this case's request for adjudication is recognized as groundless through a resolution of the National Tax Judge Joint Session, so it is decided as ordered by Articles 81 and 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

[Attachment]

Address and Interest of each claimant

"OOOOOOOOOOOOO in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOO "O4/11 "OOdong in Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" in "O4/11".