[상속세부과처분취소][공1999.2.1.(75),266]
In cases where the deposit or withdrawal is pending within two years before the commencement date of the inheritance, the method of calculating the disposal value to be included in the taxable value of the inheritance;
Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996) provides that where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by type of property and, in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, from among those, the use of which is at least KRW 100 million objectively clear, such amount shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property. In accordance with the above provision, in calculating the taxable value of inherited property, the deposit withdrawn within two years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance pursuant to the above provision, the amount calculated by subtracting the aggregate of the amount deposited after the withdrawal from each deposit account of the decedent shall be deemed the disposal value: Provided, That where it is confirmed that the amount deposited
Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) (see current Article 15 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)
Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Head of Seosan Tax Office (Attorney Full Il-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 95Gu10341 delivered on March 14, 1997
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.
1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.
Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's finding that the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased non-party 1") calculated the shares of this case from October 8, 1993, the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, and disposed of the shares of this case on March 3, 199 of the same year within 2 years, based on the relevant employment evidence, is justifiable. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof or in the violation of the rules of evidence as
The grounds of appeal are not accepted since they merely criticize the selection of evidences and the recognition of facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below.
2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period, which supplement the grounds of appeal.
A. On the first ground for appeal
Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same) provides that where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the type of property and at least 100 million won, and where the purpose of use is objectively unclear, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property. In cases of inclusion of deposited money within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance in the taxable value of inherited property pursuant to the above provision, the remaining amount shall be deemed as the disposal value, excluding the sum of deposited money after withdrawal from the aggregate of deposited money from each deposit account of the ancestor, but if it is confirmed that the deposited amount is a separately created amount irrespective of the withdrawn amount, it shall
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the adopted evidence: the deceased's deposit transactions with the Dong Dong Mutual Savings and Finance Company, which was separated from the commencement date of the inheritance of this case and withdrawn from each deposit account until October 9, 1991, from the aggregate of 2,831,294,905 won, and the sum of the amounts deposited in each deposit account after withdrawal to 1,753,652,500 won; and then, the court below found only 1,07,642,405 won (2,831,294,905 won - 1,753,652,500 won - 1,753,652,500 won (the amount which was deducted from the above withdrawal amount) as disposal value on the ground that its use is not objectively clear; in light of the records and legal principles, the court below's findings of facts and the judgment below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the grounds for appeal.
This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
B. On the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the deceased borrowed KRW 300 million from Nonparty 2 on May 12, 1990, KRW 300 million from Nonparty 3 on July 2, 199, KRW 1.1 billion from Nonparty 4 on November 17, 19 of the same year, and KRW 1.1 billion in total from Nonparty 4 on November 17 of the same year, based on the employment evidence, and determined that the above loan debt KRW 1.1 billion should be deducted from the taxable value of the inherited property in this case pursuant to Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act as the debt owed by the deceased at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the judgment, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are nothing more than criticism against the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts.
This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)