1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs

A. Article 67(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that “he inheritor liable to pay the inheritance tax shall report the taxable value and tax base of the inheritance within six months from the date of commencing the inheritance.” Article 67(3) of the same Act provides that “The period under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be calculated from the date on which an administrator of inherited property is appointed to perform his/her duties

In light of the fact that Article 67(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “if an heir fails to file a report on the taxable value and tax base of inheritance within the reporting deadline, the legal effect, such as failure to deduct the reported tax amount, additional tax, etc., arises immediately, and Article 67(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act that was amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014 provides that “the period under paragraph (1) shall be limited to cases where the executor or administrator of inherited property is designated or appointed within the period under paragraph (1), and shall be calculated from the date on which such designation or appointment is made,” barring any special circumstance, if an administrator of inherited property is appointed after the date on which an administrator of inherited property commences his/her duties, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that the reporting deadline of inheritance is newly calculated

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the following facts are revealed: ① the Nonparty died on February 21, 2007, and the Plaintiffs reported inheritance on August 22, 2007, which was the date following the inheritance filing deadline; ② the Plaintiffs requested the appointment of an administrator of inherited property for the preservation of inherited property on September 11, 2007 pursuant to Article 1023 of the Civil Act, and was tried on September 13, 2007 by the Seoul Family Court for the appointment of an administrator of inherited property on September 19, 2007; ③ the administrator of inherited property appointed as above reported inheritance on September 19, 2007; ③ the Defendant denied the tax credit for inheritance and issued the instant disposition on the grounds that the Plaintiffs did not report inheritance tax within six months from the commencement date of inheritance; ③ the Defendant denied the tax credit for inheritance and added the non-reported additional tax and the additional tax for unfaithful

Examining these factual relations in light of the aforementioned legal principles, insofar as an administrator of inherited property is appointed after the Plaintiffs’ filing deadline for inheritance tax, the filing deadline for inheritance tax cannot be newly calculated from the date the administrator of inherited property commences his/her duties.

C. Although the reasoning of the lower court is somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the inheritance tax reporting deadline should be re-ckoning from the date the administrator of inherited property was appointed to perform his/her duties, was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the initial date of filing the inheritance

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs

A. Article 6(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides, “If it is deemed impossible to file a report by the due date due to a natural disaster or any other cause prescribed by the Presidential Decree or if a taxpayer makes a request, the head of the competent district tax office may extend the due date under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same) upon delegation, provides, “When the due date is extended by the head of the competent tax office pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Act, he/she shall, without delay, notify the person concerned in writing stating the relevant taxpayer, the extended

B. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion disputing the extension of the filing deadline on the ground that the extension of the filing deadline under Article 6(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes requires the head of the competent tax office to determine or approve the extension of the filing deadline by recognizing the existence of the grounds for extension of the filing deadline upon the taxpayer’s application or ex officio, and that the extension of the filing deadline does not naturally extend due to the existence of the grounds

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and it cannot be said that there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles on extension of the time limit for report under Article 6 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. As to the Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal No. 3 and Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Article 47-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if a taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her duty to report and pay inheritance tax, an additional tax without filing a return (Article 47-2(1)) and an additional tax for unfaithful payment (Article 47-5(1)) shall be imposed. Meanwhile, Article 48(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “if a cause for imposing additional tax falls under the cause of extension of due date under Article 6(1) of the same Act, the relevant additional tax shall not be imposed.” Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “if a taxpayer’s family member living together is seriously or seriously injured by a disease (Article 47-2(1)),” and “if a taxpayer’s family member living together

B. The lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that: (a) Plaintiff 3’s mother was delegated the inheritance tax return by Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, who was the mother on July 2007; (b) Plaintiff 3’s children born on August 12, 2007 died on August 24, 2007; and (c) the inheritance tax return was filed immediately after the expiration of the inheritance tax filing deadline; (b) Plaintiff 3 was not subject to additional tax on the ground that it constitutes grounds under Article 2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, as well as Article 2(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, with respect to Plaintiff 3’s children, and thus, it cannot impose additional tax on Plaintiff 1 and 2 until August 30, 2007, which is a considerable period of time required to teach funeral rites after Plaintiff 3’s death.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the grounds for exemption of additional tax exist individually against each of the plaintiffs and the additional tax is exempted only during the existence of such grounds as stipulated in Article 48(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of exemption of additional tax due to erroneous payment, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for exemption of additional tax as alleged by the defendant.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)