[상속세등부과처분취소][공1991.6.15,(898),1529]
(a) In case where part of land has been sold by installments at the market price appraised by appraisal institutions and the remaining portion of land has become inherited property because an ancestor died, the assessment methods of the value of inherited property, and the temporary decline in utility value after the commencement of inheritance;
(b) With respect to the property, the value of which can be seen as the market price of the inherited property, it shall be appraised on the basis of that value, and with respect to the property, the market price of which cannot be assessed, whether it violates the principle of fair taxation of measures
(c) limitations on the exercise of the right to Elucidation;
A. In case where part of the land was sold by installments at the market price appraisal by an appraisal agency and the remaining part of the land becomes inherited property, the appraisal of the value of the inherited property shall be the same as the average value of the remaining part of the land, unless there are special circumstances, if the average value of a part of the land within the same lot number is determined by the appraisal agency’s appraisal. Even if the value of the remaining part of the land has been temporarily lowered due to the construction of the road on the land sold after the commencement of the inheritance, such circumstances shall not be considered in the appraisal of the value
B. Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5(1) and Article 5(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with respect to property, the value of which can be seen as the market price of the inherited property, is revealed, the value of which is assessed on the basis of its value, and with respect to property, the market price of which is difficult to be assessed on the basis of its standard market price cannot be said to be contrary to the principle of
(c) The court’s right to request verification is recognized only when it is evident that the parties are not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of action, and it does not require the court to urge proof until the court obtains the conviction in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts.
(a)Article 9(1)(b) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 5(1) and 5(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 18(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;
A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9145 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 277) (Gong1990, 277) Da. 86Meu132 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 646) (Gong1989, 1296) decided July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 129638 delivered on April 27, 1990)
Lee Ho-hee and seven others (Attorney Seo-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Head of Seogsan Tax Office
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9145 Decided December 12, 1989
Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu50 delivered on May 23, 1990
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff, etc.
1. The court below held on January 12, 1981 that the above eight parcels of land were sold to the Korea Land Development Corporation after dividing the above notified portion into the appraisal value and the remaining eight parcels of land was sold to the Korea Land Development Corporation on January 12, 1981 due to the predecessor's incorporation of about 25,404 square meters in the part of the land dealing with the slope of about 93 degrees in the same 93 square meters in the land owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and the remaining part of the land at the time of sale to the Korea Land Development Corporation. Although the road was not constructed at the time of the commencement of the inheritance and the remaining part of the land at the time of sale after the commencement of the inheritance, the court below held that the remaining part of the land at the time of the above sale to the Korea Land Development Corporation did not constitute an unlawful determination that the remaining part of the land at the time of the commencement of the inheritance and that there was no unlawful determination that the remaining part of the land at the time of sale should be the same value of the remaining part after the commencement of the inheritance.
2. According to Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5(1) and Article 5(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of commencement of the inheritance, i.e., the current market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In cases of land and buildings where it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be based on the appraised value by the rate method, in cases of land and buildings, and in other areas, on the basis of the appraised value by the rate method, in accordance with the tax rate under the Local Tax Act. This is for reasonable evaluation of the value of inherited property. Since the court below is a provision for reasonable evaluation of the value of inherited property, it shall be assessed on the basis of the value of the inherited property at the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance
3. The court's right to request verification is limited to cases where it is evident that the parties are not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of litigation, and in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts, the court does not have to urge the parties to prove it until the court obtains a conviction (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu638 delivered on April 27, 190 and 86Meu132 delivered on March 10, 1987).
According to the records, on January 12, 1981, a day before the predecessor's death, the non-party Korea Land Development Corporation established a sales contract for selling 8 parcels of land, such as 108, 108, Busan, Seo-dong, Busan, and received cash 45,00,000 won as down payment, and the defendant imposed the instant taxation including the inherited property. The plaintiffs asserted that 18,50,000 won out of the above money was used for the settlement of promissorysory notes by the ancestor, and the remaining 26,50,000 won was paid to the ancestor who was hospitalized by the ancestor, and the money used for the settlement of promissory notes was not included in the value of inherited property after being accepted in the pre-trial procedure, and there was no further assertion that the above money was returned from the court below's judgment to the court below that there was no reason to prove that the above money was inherited in cash unless it was clearly revealed that the above money was consumed by the court below prior to the death of the above remaining money.
All appeals are 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.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)