(b) Whether the appraised value by the Korea Appraisal Board four months prior to the commencement of inheritance may be deemed the market value at the time of inheritance;

B. Since the real estate price in Korea at the time of 1979 belongs to the fact that there was a rise in the market price of the real estate in Korea, the value assessed by the Korea Appraisal Board at least four months prior to the commencement of the inheritance cannot be deemed to be higher than the market price at the time of the inheritance. In case where there is no evidence to deem that there was a decline in the market price between them, it shall be deemed to be the market

(1) With respect to the claim for confirmation of the primary invalidity:

According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the taxation of this case as the primary claim, and recognized that the plaintiffs paid in full the amount of KRW 72,00,076, and the defense tax amount of KRW 14,400,014, which was imposed on September 30, 1983 in response to the above taxation, and as long as the execution of the taxation is not different from the completed by the payment of the imposed tax amount, it shall be deemed that there is no legal uncertainty or risk that may be caused to the plaintiffs in the future due to the extinguishment of the taxation claim, and there is no direct method such as the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment by civil procedure even in seeking the return of the already paid tax amount. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative litigation system, such as the lawsuit.

(2) With respect to the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 1's conjunctive disposition (the partial revocation of a preliminary disposition) claim:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in notifying the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 8 of the second year inheritance tax for the second year of annual payment of this case against the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 8, the court below determined ex officio determination by the court below that the plaintiff 1 indicated the taxpayer on the tax payment notice and the remaining plaintiffs' name was attached to the tax payment notice and delivered this notice only to the plaintiff 1, and that in relation to the remaining plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 1, the defendant's taxation as to the second year annual payment of annual payment does not exist separately, and therefore, it is clear that there is no administrative disposition that is subject to revocation lawsuit, and therefore, the part of the above plaintiffs' preliminary claim is unlawful.

In full view of the provisions of Article 25-2 and Article 25 of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, which was amended by Act No. 3578 of December 21, 1982 and Presidential Decree No. 10979 of December 31, 1983, which were enforced from January 1, 1983, when the tax authority determines or revises the tax base and amount of inheritance tax, the tax authority shall notify the heir thereof. In this case, if there are not less than two heirs, the tax authority shall notify only one heir under Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act among the inheritors. This notification shall be effective to all inheritors. According to the provisions of the Addenda (iv) and the Addenda (iii) of the same Enforcement Decree, each of the above provisions shall apply to the first determination, correction, and notification under Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act after the enforcement date of the above Act.

According to the decision of the court below in this case, since the defendant made a decision of annual payment on September 1, 1981, the defendant should follow the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax Act in regard to annual payment. Since the revised Inheritance Tax Act allows annual payment after its enforcement, only one tax disposition is imposed on the basis of a single inheritance, which is the fact of a single reason for taxation, and the annual payment is only to collect the tax already imposed on several occasions (see Articles 25 and 28 of the amended Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 19 and 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). However, according to the provisions of Articles 25 and 28 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 18 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and Articles 18 and 21 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even in case where annual payment is permitted on the ground of a single inheritance, it is permitted that the defendant made the decision of annual payment to the plaintiff on July 25, 1981 and notified it again to the plaintiff 19.

The above determination of the taxable value of inherited property is prior to the disposition of inheritance tax imposition, and is not specifically liable for tax payment by the person, and it does not vary because Plaintiff 1 received a written resolution of inheritance tax determination or obtained permission for annual payment by annual installments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu731, Apr. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu469, Mar. 26, 1985).

Therefore, in the case of this case, the tax payment notice was issued by annual installments, and there is an independent tax disposition each time. Meanwhile, since the second year tax disposition of this case was made after the enforcement date of the amended Inheritance Tax Act, this tax disposition was determined after the enforcement date of the amended Inheritance Tax Act, and the above revised Inheritance Tax Act Article 25-2 of the amended Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act of the same Act of this case of the tax payment notice for the plaintiff 1 who is entitled to receive a tax payment notice independently under Article 18(2) of the amended Inheritance Tax Act of this case also has the effect of the notification for the remaining plaintiffs who are the successors. Therefore, the court below's decision that the tax disposition did not exist because the court below did not issue a tax notice for the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1, and dismissed

In this case, the court below held that the above disposition of taxation on only one of the inheritors is null and void, and in the form of a claim for revocation, the above disposition of taxation on the remaining inheritors is null and void. Thus, the court below's decision that the above disposition of taxation on the plaintiff 1 among the inheritors is unlawful. As such, the court below's decision that the duty payment notice is null and void in relation to the remaining plaintiffs, or that the absence of the above disposition of taxation on the plaintiff 1 among the inheritors, is erroneous, or the judgment of the court below which held that the above disposition of taxation is null and void is unlawful.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

(1) When the court below rendered the instant tax notice against the plaintiffs 1 and 8, the defendant indicated the taxpayer on the notice of tax payment as plaintiff 1 and 8 and served only the plaintiff 1 with the name of the remaining plaintiffs attached to the notice of tax payment, and decided that the pertinent tax disposition does not exist in relation to the remaining plaintiffs except plaintiff 1, and that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 25-2 of the amended Inheritance Tax Act, Article 19 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) The Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu152 delivered on March 29, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu325 delivered on December 24, 1985, which asserts that the lawsuit in question is the cause of taxation identical to the inheritance in this case; however, it is clear that the subject of the lawsuit in this case was the first year imposed on annual installments, and the second year portion in this case was not the subject of the lawsuit, and thus the res judicata effect of the judgment against the plaintiffs in this case does not affect the imposition of the second year portion in this case. Such purport of the judgment below is not justified and it is not acceptable to discuss different opinions (the defendant is the Supreme Court Decision 82Gu103 delivered on March 29, 194; Supreme Court Decision 82Gu103 delivered on March 24, 1985; this decision is different from this case, and the above judgment is indicated differently in this case, and it seems that the judgment in this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment that points out the above defendant's grounds of appeal.

(3) According to Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 21, 1981), which was enforced on December 21, 1979, and Article 5(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981), the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status as at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and when it is difficult to calculate the market price based on the current status, the value based on the current status shall be based on the rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in the case of land, buildings, and other areas shall be based on the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act.

According to the records, the defendant's appraisal of five lots of land and nine buildings among inherited property on December 2, 1979 and August 9, 1979, which was the commencement date of the inheritance, was proved to be the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, since the real estate price in Korea at the time of the commencement of the inheritance is the publicly known fact that there was a rise in the market price of the above property, the appraisal price at least four months prior to the commencement date of the inheritance cannot be deemed to be higher than the market price at the time of the inheritance, and in this case, there is no evidence to deem that there was a decline in the market price at the time of the inheritance, it shall be deemed to be the market price at the time

However, in order for the Defendant to claim that the market price was the same as the market price at the time of inheritance, the lower court did not prove that there was no change in the market price between the time and the time of inheritance, and there was no proof as to the fact that there was no change in the market price at the time of inheritance. In so doing, the lower court held that the Defendant’s taxation against the Plaintiff 1 by deeming the above appraised value as the market price at the time of inheritance was unlawful, and cited the Supreme Court Decision 84Nu177 Decided June 26, 1984. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the purport of the judgment, and did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

Kim Jong-sik shall not sign and affix a seal on his/her overseas business trip. A regular admission shall be made.