[1] Purport of the provision of Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and whether the principle of taxation based on the ground is violated (negative)

[2] In a case where the market value of inherited property has been verified in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition after evaluating inherited property by means of a supplementary evaluation method, the standard for calculating the reasonable amount of inherited property

[1] Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the aggregate amount of money or debt borne by each type of the inherited property disposed of by an ancestor exceeds KRW 100 million within two years prior to the date on which the inheritance commences, the relevant disposal price or loan money is substantially converted to the burden of proof so that the inheritance tax cannot be reduced unfairly by donation or inheritance to an heir in cash where it is not easy to disclose taxation data. Thus, when the tax authority proves that the use of the property is objectively unclear, the relevant amount may be included in the taxable value of inherited property unless the taxpayer proves that the purpose of use is objectively unclear. If the heir proves that his/her use, the application is excluded, and thus, it cannot be deemed a provision that violates the principle of taxation based

[2] In imposing inheritance tax, the tax authority assessed a supplementary assessment method on the ground that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market price of inherited property at the time of commencing the inheritance, but if the market price of inherited property has been proven by the time of closing argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the said taxation, it shall be determined whether the amount of the taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount, and whether the amount of the taxation exceeds the reasonable tax

[1] Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act / [2] Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1490 decided Dec. 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 282) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4413 decided Sep. 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 3037) 94Nu15929 decided May 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2140), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu23 decided Jun. 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2423) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu551 decided Jul. 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 1046), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu389490 decided Mar. 27, 1990 (Gong1954909 decided Oct. 24, 195)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Head of tax office

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu88 delivered on August 24, 1995

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court. All of the Plaintiffs’ appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed part are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below as to the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the amount of the inherited obligation is KRW 258,130,000) is reasonable in light of the records and relevant evidence, and there is no illegality such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

We cannot accept the issue because it is merely a ground for the judgment of cooking and fact-finding of evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below without failing to prove it by themselves.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the aggregate amount of money or debt borne by an ancestor by kind of the inherited property disposed of within two years before the commencing date of the inheritance exceeds KRW 100 million, the relevant disposal price or loan money is donated or inherited in cash that is not easy to be exposed to taxation data, and thus, the tax authority has substantially converted the burden of proof to the extent that the inheritance tax cannot be reduced unfairly. Thus, when the tax authority proves that there is an objectively unclear amount among them, the amount may be included in the taxable value of inherited property unless the taxpayer proves that the purpose of use is objectively unclear. If the heir proves his/her proof of the purpose of use, the application is excluded, and thus, it cannot be deemed a provision that violates the principle of taxation based on the basis of the inheritance or the principle of substantial taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu1490, Dec. 12, 198; 92Nu413, Sept. 25, 1992; 94Nu1395.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of legal principles and the degree of burden of proof.

In addition, the court below did not recognize that the amount of KRW 200,604,117, which the plaintiffs failed to prove their use, was spent as medical expenses of the deceased in light of the degree of the property of the deceased and the medical history of the deceased, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rule of experience or incomplete

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below assessed ○○○ (except for the third floor 202, which was disposed of before the commencement of inheritance) as one of the inherited property of the plaintiffs, at the price calculated by the supplementary evaluation methods conducted by the defendant at the time of the disposition of this case.

However, according to Article 9 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status as at the time of commencement of inheritance. According to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994), the value of inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance under Article 9 (1) of the same Act shall be based on the current status as at the time of commencement of inheritance. Thus, in imposing inheritance tax, even if the tax authority imposed a tax by supplementary assessment for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market value as at the time of commencement of inheritance, even if it imposed a tax assessment by supplementary assessment for the reason that the market value of inherited property has been proven by the time of the closing of the trial court in revocation of the tax disposition, it shall be determined whether the tax amount of the taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8402 of Jun. 30, 1995

According to the facts established by the court below, the above ○○ Loan was completed on May 9, 1990, 190, which was 294,104,387, and was completed on February 11, 1991, and nine months prior to the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, and the new construction cost (including the third floor 202 portion) was 294,104,387 won, and according to the appraisal report (the evidence No. 6 and the record No. 157 pages) submitted by the plaintiffs, the appraisal value (the third floor 201, 202) on July 7, 1993, which was 2 years and five months after the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, is 345,04,950 won, and in light of this, there is sufficient room to view the market value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case as equivalent to the new construction cost.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appraisal of inherited property, on the ground that there is no evidence that the above new construction cost is the market value of the inherited property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case, and thus, it is reasonable for the court below to have assessed its value according to the supplementary evaluation method.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. The costs of appeal by the dismissed judgment are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)