(b) An administrative disposition that requires a prior trial procedure in cases where part of the imposition disposition of taxes is revoked due to a correction or re-determination;

(c) Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the part of which is revoked by correction or re-determination;

(d) In calculating transfer income tax from transfer of inherited real estate, the actual transaction price required for acquisition of such real estate; and

B. In a case where an appeal is filed against the remaining part of the original disposition of imposition of a tax is unlawful due to a correction or re-revision decision of revocation, reduction, or correction of the contents of the original disposition of imposition of a tax, since the remaining part of the original disposition of imposition is not revoked by a correction or re-revision decision, if the initial disposition of imposition was followed by the previous trial procedure, it would be sufficient and should not be done by the previous trial procedure.

C. As for the part of the tax imposition disposition which was lawfully revoked by the correction or re-revision decision, there is no interest in the lawsuit to seek revocation of the original imposition disposition, and it is sufficient to seek revocation of the original imposition disposition which was automatically reduced, since there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the entire imposition disposition.

D. According to Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1980, Dec. 3, 1980) and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the actual transaction price required to acquire the pertinent property, which is necessary expenses to calculate the transfer margin of transfer income tax, shall be calculated at a price equivalent to the cost for acquisition calculated by applying Article 86 (1) of the same Decree mutatis mutandis. Article 86 (1) 3 of the same Decree provides that the acquisition price of the relevant property shall be the normal price at the time of acquisition. Thus, according to the purport of the above provisions, the actual transaction price required to acquire the real property acquired by inheritance, shall be deemed the normal price at the time of inheritance, unless there is any circumstance to deem that the purchase price was determined particularly higher than the normal market price, and it shall not be deemed that the actual transaction price at the time of inheritance is the normal market price at the time of inheritance or that it is not clear that the acquisition price is the normal market price at the time of inheritance.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit for the above dismissed part shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the costs of the appeal for the dismissed part shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant initially identified the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors 1 of the deceased non-party 1 as joint and several taxpayers of the transfer income tax of this case, and made the disposition of this case by deeming them as "the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 30,000 which are adults and minors, and the plaintiff 2 who is the plaintiff 10,000 who is the plaintiff 3's parental authority was not separately indicated in the indication column of the claimant's request for examination. However, although it clearly stated that "the plaintiff 2, who is the 10 years old" was "the plaintiff 2, who is the legal representative of the plaintiff 2, was omitted from the claimant", the plaintiff 3, who is the legal representative of the plaintiff 2, expressed all the claimant as claimant 2, and the national tax adjudication lawsuit was not a problem, and all the plaintiff 3, as claimant 1 and the ground for appeal in the above request for examination or adjudgment, were not a matter of illegality in the whole plaintiff 1 and the share of the plaintiff 3.

Based on such factual basis, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff 2 did not go through the pre-trial procedure on the ground that the plaintiff 2 should be deemed to have filed a request for examination of this case by proxy of the plaintiff 3. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the pre-trial procedure of the pre-trial procedure. There is no ground for appeal.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

According to the records, the defendant initially issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 1,482,953 and defense tax of KRW 148,295 on February 14, 1980 with three plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for tax payment, but the National Tax Tribunal divided the judgment that the plaintiffs are not jointly and severally liable for tax payment, and issued a decision of correction imposing capital gains tax of KRW 1,48,295, and KRW 148,295, respectively. The court below rejected the original disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3 from the first instance court based on the premise that the plaintiff 2 had no legitimate grounds for revocation of the first disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 1 and the second instance court's new disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 1 and the second instance court's new disposition of imposition on the ground that the first disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 2 had no legitimate grounds for revocation of the first disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 1 and the second instance court's new disposition of imposition on the plaintiff 2.

In the opinion of the court below, the decision of the court below that the correction or re-revision is justified in the opinion of the court below that it is justified in the previous decision of the court below that the correction or re-revision is justified in the previous decision of the court below that the previous decision of the court below was justified in the previous decision of the court below that the previous decision of the court below was justified in the previous decision of the court below, since the previous decision of the court below to revoke the part of the original decision of the court below and revoke, reduce or correct the part of the original decision of the court below in accordance with the previous decision of the appeal procedure, and that the previous decision of the court below was not subject to the previous decision of the court below, and that the previous decision of the court below was justified in the previous decision of the court below that the previous decision of the court below was justified in the previous decision of the court below that the previous decision of the court below was justified.

In the meantime, however, the court below ordered the revocation of the tax disposition in whole, on the premise that the first tax disposition, including the part already revoked by the re-revision decision, is the object of the appeal disposition in this case, it is limited to the part remaining without revocation in the original tax disposition, and there is no interest in the lawsuit to seek revocation again with respect to the part which was lawfully revoked by the correction or re-revision decision, and that it is sufficient by demanding revocation of the original tax disposition already reduced. The court below ordered revocation of the tax disposition in this case on the ground that the whole amount of the first tax disposition, including the part already revoked by the re-revision decision, was the object of the appeal disposition in this case. In this regard, the court below erred in the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, and the part which ordered

(3) On the third ground for appeal:

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiffs died on January 25, 1979 by the deceased non-party 1, who is the fleet of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs jointly inherited co-ownership shares in the land located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is subject to the taxation of this case, and then sold it to non-party 2 in 11,258,000 won on March 24, 1979, which is only 2 months. In calculating the tax base of capital gains tax for the transfer of the real estate of this case, the defendant issued the taxation of this case by considering the actual transaction price required for the acquisition as 9,065,27 won, which is the standard market price at the time of inheritance, and there was no circumstance that the market price was changed between the time of inheritance and transfer, and the standard market price was not changed.

According to Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 1980, Dec. 3, 1980) and Article 94 (1) 1 of the same Decree, the actual transaction price used to acquire the relevant property, which is necessary expenses to calculate the transfer price difference of transfer income tax, shall be calculated at the price corresponding to the cost for acquisition calculated by applying Article 86 (1) of the same Decree mutatis mutandis. Article 86 (1) 3 of the same Decree provides that the acquisition price of the property acquired by inheritance, as in this case, shall be the normal price at the time of acquisition. Thus, according to the purport of the above provision, the actual transaction price used to acquire the real property acquired by inheritance, as in this case, shall be deemed the normal price at the time of inheritance, unless there is any reason to view that the sale price was determined particularly higher than the normal market price and that there is no error in the decision of the court below as to the acquisition price at the time of inheritance, it should be viewed that the sale price at the time of inheritance is the normal market price at the above.

(4) As seen above, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the order of cancellation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 388,107, 38,810 against the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as well as capital gains tax of KRW 174,739, and defense tax of KRW 17,473 against the plaintiffs 2 is without merit. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim of the above part among the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed. The part of the judgment of the court below is against the law as seen above, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs 1 and 3 shall be dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiffs 1 and 3, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young