[2] Whether a taxpayer whose address is different from the real domicile at the time of filing an inheritance tax return is against the good faith principle to dispute the violation of the jurisdiction of the disposition of imposing inheritance tax (negative), and whether the trust on the jurisdiction is worth protecting in cases where the tax authority relied only on the taxpayer’s report without confirming the domicile of the inheritee (negative)

[2] In order to apply the principle of good faith to the taxpayer, there is an objectively contradictory behavior, the behavior was caused by the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority caused thereby should be worthy of protection. In light of the fact that the head of a tax office, upon receiving the inheritance tax report, has to investigate its jurisdiction and take measures accordingly, the head of a tax office who does not have jurisdiction over the taxpayer, cannot be deemed to have committed a serious act of worship merely by proving that the taxpayer, whose domicile is different from the actual domicile of the decedent at the time of the disposition of imposing the inheritance tax, later later later than the violation of the disposition of imposing the inheritance tax, after the disposition of imposing the inheritance tax, the tax office cannot be deemed to have verified the domicile of the decedent by the certified copy of the resident registration card, and believed that the tax office has jurisdiction only with respect to the taxpayer's report without viewing the decedent's domicile.

According to Article 1 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996), the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of commencement of inheritance. Since inheritance begins at the place of the inheritee’s domicile (Article 98 of the Civil Act), the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee shall be the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of domicile of the inheritee. Meanwhile, pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax base return shall be submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax at the time of the report. If a tax base return is submitted erroneously, the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax shall be made to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax. In full view of these provisions, reporting the inheritance tax to the head of the tax office.

In addition, in order to apply the principle of good faith to taxpayers, there is an objectively contradictory behavior, the behavior was caused by the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority caused thereby should be worthy of protection (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu18383, Mar. 20, 1997). In light of the fact that upon receiving an inheritance tax report as seen above, the head of a tax office who has not jurisdiction but has no jurisdiction shall investigate the jurisdiction and take measures accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority reported the inheritance tax to the taxpayer who did not fulfill the duty of investigation, and that the taxpayer, whose domicile is different from the real domicile of the decedent, later later than the disposition of inheritance tax imposition, did not have committed a serious act of worship, and it cannot be said that the tax authority believed that the taxpayer had jurisdiction only by confirming the residence of the decedent through the certified copy of the resident registration card, etc. and believed that the taxpayer had no jurisdiction over the jurisdiction, and thus, it cannot be said that there is trust worth protecting the taxpayer.

In the same purport, even if the plaintiffs, who are the taxpayers of inheritance tax of this case, entered the domicile of the deceased in the place other than the real domicile at the time of the inheritance tax return, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case issued by the defendant was unlawful as long as the head of the competent tax office did not have jurisdiction over the inheritance tax, and that the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' violation of the principle of good faith is violated. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)