2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

A. Upon the death on December 17, 2008, the Plaintiffs, the inheritors, on June 17, 2009, assessed the value of the said 436-48 square meters on a road in Jung-gu, Seoul, and 441-40 square meters on a road, 207.6 square meters on a 442-14 road, 504.8 square meters on a 444-23 road, 110.7 square meters on a 457-25 road, 457-31.6 square meters on a 457-34 road and 197 square meters on a 457-197 square meters on a 20-1,0000 square meters on a 25-1,0000 square meters on a 20-1,0000 square meters of forest and forest on a 250-1,0000 square meters of forest and forest on a 251,000 square meters on a 2125-1,00.

B. Since then, the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office assessed the value of the road of this case and forest land of this case as zero won under the General Rule 61-504 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and assessed the value of the road of this case as zero won, and assessed the value of the forest of this case 12-2 and 12-10 as the publicly assessed individual land price rather than the above compensation value, and notified the defendant of the taxation data to reduce the amount of KRW 00 from the inherited property value.

C. On December 11, 2009, on the basis of the taxation data notified as above, the defendant decided and notified 000 won of inheritance tax (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") to the plaintiffs, and on February 5, 2010, the above application for payment in kind was rejected on the road in this case by deeming that there is no property value, and on the forest land in this case, the above amount assessed as the above compensation value was denied, and the above application for payment in kind was permitted by recognizing only the value assessed as the individual officially announced value as the payment in kind was accepted, and the above application for payment in kind was permitted with respect to forest land in this case 12-1.

D. On February 12, 2010, the Plaintiff Company B rejected the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on May 19, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 to 5 (including each number), the video or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i) the first argument;

Since 190, the officially assessed individual land price of this case is constructed every year, and the officially assessed individual land price of this case has increased every 10 years, and the officially assessed individual land price of neighboring areas including the road of this case has reached about 000 won according to the New Airport Development Plan of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the officially assessed individual land price of this case is used as a tax base for various kinds of taxes, such as property tax, and the officially assessed individual land price of a road which is recognized as property value is assessed and publicly announced, while the officially assessed individual land price of this case is assessed and publicly announced as to a road with no property value, while the land price of this case is not calculated and publicly announced as to a road with no property value, and the acquisition tax and registration tax are paid as a tax base at the time of the registration of inheritance of the road of this case. However, it is unlawful that the defendant imposed the inheritance tax calculated by evaluating the value of the road of this case as 0 won on the plaintiffs as property

(ii) the second argument;

The forest of this case is identical or similar to the adjacent land and the adjacent land area, land category, purpose, and officially announced value. The above expropriated land had no price fluctuation from the date of commencing the inheritance of this case to the date of commencing the inheritance of this case since the expropriation of about 10 months before the date of commencing the inheritance of this case, while the officially assessed individual land price of the forest of this case continued to increase continuously, etc. In light of the fact that the value of the forest of this case 12-2 forest of this case is KRW 00 per square meter, which is the compensation value of 12-7, the adjacent land, and the value of the forest of this case 12-10 forest of this case is 00 won per square meter, which is the compensation value of 12-3, the adjacent land, and the value of the forest of this case, which is the compensation value of 12-1 forest of this case, under the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22900, Dec. 17, 2008).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant road has been published prior to the commencement date of the instant inheritance, and the land category on the public record is all the roads, and its current status is a narrow sloping road surrounded by the site of several lots of houses, which is commonly used by residents.

2) The competent administrative agency did not impose the property tax on the instant road. On the other hand, on August 31, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office sent a public notice demanding confirmation of the land compensation plan related to the instant road to the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office. On September 2, 2009, the response was received on September 2, 2009 that there was no land compensation plan related to the instant road.

3) The annual individual land price of the forest of this case and the land expropriated adjacent thereto are as listed below.

(The following table omitted):

4) Around November 16, 2007, the area of 9,008 square meters in mountain 12-3 shall be divided into 12-3 square meters in mountain and 12-10 forest and 6,508 square meters in mountain. On the other hand, around February 15, 2008, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City accepted the area of 12-7 forest and 911 square meters in mountain as KRW 00 per square meter in mountain 12-3 forest and 2,500 square meters in mountain, and the remaining 679 square meters per square meter in mountainous village (the Plaintiff was partially expropriated in mountain 12-3, and the remaining land was changed to 12-10 forest and forest of this case, and thus, it appears to be the same assertion as the forest and forest of this case. However, in light of the same factual basis as the forest of this case, the Mayor appears to have claimed that the remaining land had been changed to 12-10 forest and forest of this case.

5) The public account records of 12-3, 12-10, 12-2, and 12-2, of the above expropriated are as follows:

(The following table omitted):

6) The above expropriated 12-3 is the land dealing with a perfect slope toward the south. The land in the mountain of this case is the land in the shape that is superior to the trend of the above expropriated land located above the upper part of the land in the mountain of this case, and part of which is the land in the shape that is located above the above expropriated land is actually being used as the road. The forest in the mountain of this case is located above about 100 meters away from the above expropriated land, and the forest in the mountain of this case is located above the upper part of about 100 meters away from the above expropriated land and forms a perfect slope toward the south of the west. Meanwhile, the above expropriated land and the forest in the mountain of 12-7 are adjacent to the densely concentrated area of each lot (the land in this case has a school, apartment, housing, etc.).

7) The details of each fact-finding results to the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the head of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City are

A) Pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined and publicly announced annually by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu as of the officially assessed land price, following deliberation by the City/Gun/Gu and the former Evaluation Committee on Real Estate, and provided it to the relevant administrative agencies, etc., but exceptionally, the officially assessed individual land price may not be determined and publicly announced on land which is not subject to the imposition of land charges, farmland preservation charges and development charges, and land which is not subject to the imposition of national taxes or local taxes (in the case of national and public land, limited to public land).

B) According to the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price applied in 2011, the roads for which the officially assessed individual land price is determined are determined and publicly announced by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu after consultation with the head of the administrative agency concerned.

C) The ratio of the roads calculated by the officially assessed individual land price among the entire roads in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government where the instant roads are located is about 88.5%.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, Gap's evidence 1, 3, 4, 7, Eul's evidence 2 through 5 (including each number), the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the purport of the whole arguments and the purport of the whole arguments

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that the value of the property on which the inheritance is levied under this Act shall be deemed to be the market price as of the date on which the inheritance commences. In applying Article 60(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where it is difficult to calculate the market price in the application of Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the assessed value is based on the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, taking into account the type, size, transaction situation, etc. of the property in question. Accordingly, Article 61(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where it is difficult to calculate the market price of the land, it shall be deemed that the appraisal price cannot be calculated based on the publicly assessed individual land price under the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate.

However, Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the inherited property shall be calculated based on the market price as of the commencement date of the inheritance in principle. However, the general rule 61-504 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the inherited property shall be calculated based on the market price as of the commencement date of the inheritance, except in exceptional cases where the value of the property is recognized, such as where the market price of the commencement date of the inheritance is verified by compensation prices, etc., although the common rule 61-504 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is merely limited to the guidelines for treatment of business affairs inside the national tax administrative agency, it is included in the inherited property, but the assessed value shall be zero (0) except in cases where the inherited property is actually used by many and unspecified persons, such as where the market price of the commencement date of the inheritance is verified by compensation prices, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du3860, Sept. 3, 199).

B) In light of the above legal principles, although the officially assessed individual land price was publicly announced on the road in this case, the plaintiffs paid acquisition tax and registration tax at the time of the inheritance registration of the road in this case, and there are circumstances that the plaintiffs are expected to gain substantial profits from the road in this case due to housing redevelopment projects in the future, the road in this case was officially used by the residents from the past to the present day, and the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs did not collect usage fees for the road in this case from the residents passing through the road in this case. In addition, in light of the shape or use status of the road in this case, it seems impossible for the plaintiffs to use the road in this case exclusively or demand usage fees of the road in this case by restricting the above residents' passage, and there is no material to view that the road in this case has property value such as confirming the market value as at the time of the commencement date of the inheritance by the compensation price, etc., and there is no evidence to support that each of the above circumstances and evidence No. 8-14 or each of the images in this case had no property value at the time of the commencement date of inheritance.

C) Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to evaluate the value of the instant road as zero won on the ground that the Defendant’s disposition of this case did not have property value. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Article 60(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance (hereinafter referred to as the "date of commencing the inheritance") shall be the value of the property on which the inheritance is assessed and which is usually deemed to have been established if a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons; and the main sentence of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property which is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as expropriation, public sale price, and appraisal price" under Article 60(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be the value of the property under each of the following subparagraphs (where expropriation is made under subparagraph 3, the value of the property shall be the value of the property which is identical or similar to that under each subparagraph of Article 60(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act within 6 months before and after the date of appraisal (hereinafter referred to as the "period of appraisal"), and other special provisions under each subparagraph 2(3) of the same paragraph shall be included:

In full view of the above provisions, the market value of the inherited property as of the date of commencing the inheritance is generally recognized as normal when a free transaction takes place between many and unspecified persons, and where the inherited property in question or its size, location, use and items are either identical or similar to those of the inherited property in question and the amount of compensation is determined within the evaluation period, the amount of compensation shall also be included, and even if the inherited property is expropriated during the period not falling under the evaluation period, if there is no special reason to change the price during the period from the evaluation criteria to the date the amount of compensation is determined by expropriation, the amount of compensation shall be accepted within the evaluation period after consultation

B) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments, it is reasonable to view that the value of the forest of this case cannot be assessed as the compensation value for the neighboring land expropriated ten months prior to the commencement date of the instant inheritance. Therefore, regarding the forest of this case deemed difficult to calculate the market price as of the commencement date of the instant inheritance, the Defendant’s evaluation by the publicly assessed individual land price according to the supplementary assessment method under Article 61(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is lawful, and this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(1) The instant mountain 12-2 forest land (1,215 square meters) is different from the area of 12-7 forest land (91 square meters) located in mountain, and does not have direct connection with it. Unlike the above mountain 12-7 forest land, there is no part having a connection with the site area, and is located above mountain 12-7 forest land, and is located above mountain 12-3 forest land (2,500 square meters) located in mountain 12-3 forest land in mountain 12-3. Furthermore, the instant forest land in mountain 12-3 is different from the above mountain 12-3 forest land in mountain 10 meters, and is located above mountain 10 meters away from the above mountain 12-2 forest land in mountain 12-2. Accordingly, the instant forest and 12-7 forest land in mountain 12-3 forest and 12-3 forest and 200 square meters converted from the compensation value of the instant forest in mountain 12-20 forest and 200 square meters.

(2) The area of the instant mountain 12-10 square meters (6,508 square meters) is larger than about 2.6 times the area of the forests and fields expropriated (2,50 square meters). Unlike the above 12-3 forest and fields, the mountainous districts and preserved mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act shall be designated as public interest and preserved mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and the natural environment district and national parks under the Natural Parks Act, unlike the above 12-3 forest and fields where significant parts of the land dealing with slopes over the south are adjacent to the area where the land is densely concentrated, and only less than the above 12-3 forest and fields are adjacent to the area where the land is densely concentrated, and the area of the forest and fields is identical or similar to the above 12-3 forest and fields, the compensation area of the forest and fields (679 square meters) with the gradient of the above 12-12-3 forest and fields, the compensation area of the forest and fields in this case shall not be deemed to be equal to the area of the forest and fields of 2010-1 square meters.

(3) The area (41,428 square meters) of the instant mountain 12-1 forest area (41,428 square meters) is larger than 47 times the area of the expropriated 229 miscellaneous land (880 square meters) and located above the mountain, and the land category is different, and the officially announced land price also differs to about 10 times. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant forest 12-1 forest area is identical or similar to the instant 229 miscellaneous land and its size, location, land category, and officially announced land price. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the instant case and filed an application for payment in kind after evaluating the forest value of the instant forest 12-1 forest area as the publicly announced land price, the Plaintiffs have different arguments while filing a lawsuit in the instant case.

(4) Even when expropriated during the period not falling under the evaluation period, if there are no special circumstances to change price during the period from the evaluation date to the date the compensation value is determined by expropriation, the amount of compensation may be expropriated within the evaluation period after consultation with the evaluation committee, and the compensation value may be included in the compensation value determined. However, this may be limited to cases where a taxpayer files an application with the evaluation committee not later than four months prior to the expiration of inheritance tax, and the Plaintiffs do not have filed such application with the evaluation committee.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed due to the lack of reason.