1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 20-2 (2) 4 of the Inheritance Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that an amount applied for payment in kind under Article 29 of the Act shall not be imposed an additional tax for arrears under Article 26 (2) of the Act even though an applicant for payment in kind has no obligation to pay it by a deadline for filing a return. Under Article 20-2 (2) 4 of the Act, an amount applied for payment in kind under Article 29 of the Act does not necessarily mean only the amount applied for payment in kind fully satisfying the requirements under Article 29 of the Act. Thus, even if an application for payment in kind violates the requirements under Article 29, Article 30, and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"), the court below determined that the above application for payment in kind does not constitute an amount applied for payment in kind under Article 20 of the Act, since the application for payment in kind is invalid or nonexistent from the initial application for payment in kind, it does not constitute an amount of gift tax in Seoul.

2. However, Article 26(2) of the Act provides, however, that the head of a tax office shall collect an additional tax for arrears with respect to an amount of tax which has not been paid or has been paid within the due date for payment under Article 20-2(2) of the Act, and Article 20-2(2)4 and Article 20-2(1) of the Act provides that the amount which deducts the amount for which payment in kind is made under Article 29 of the Act from the reported tax amount under Article 20-2(2)4 and (1) of the Act shall be voluntarily paid by the due date for payment. In light of the purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to deem that the term “amount for which an application for payment in kind has been made under Article 29 of the Act” means only the amount which meets the requirements for payment in kind under Article 29 of the Act. Thus, if a taxpayer fails to pay the amount by the due date for payment in kind, it constitutes a failure of payment within the due date for payment

However, Articles 34-7 and 29 of the Act and Articles 42(1) and 30 of the Decree provide that payment in kind may be made only with respect to real estate or valuable property, which is included in donated property. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff filed an application for payment in kind with the amount of 2,040 square meters equivalent to the above rice, which is not included in donated property. Thus, it cannot be deemed as an application for payment in kind that meets the requirements for payment in kind under Article 29 of the Act. Therefore, the failure of the plaintiff to pay the above amount by the due date for payment in kind constitutes the failure to pay the tax amount due within the due date for payment under

Nevertheless, the court below held that even if the plaintiff did not pay the above amount by the deadline for filing a report on payment in kind, it cannot be deemed as a failure to pay the above amount under the above Article. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to failure to pay the gift tax, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)