The case holding that the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to be null and void automatically on the ground that the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to have existed in relation to the remaining co-inheritors, on the ground that, in case where a tax notice attached with the name of co-inheritors and the description of inheritance shares, etc. of the co-inheritors, was served only on Gap who is the head of family heir, on the grounds that the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to have been nonexistent in relation to the other co-inheritors, and that the defect in the tax payment notice procedure in which the tax amount to be borne by each inheritor cannot be deemed to have been a serious

The case holding that the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to be null and void automatically on the ground that the imposition of inheritance tax cannot be deemed to have existed in relation to the remaining co-inheritors, and that the defect in the tax payment notice procedure in which the tax amount to be borne by each inheritor cannot be deemed to be a serious and obvious defect, in case where the tax payment notice attached with the name of co-inheritors and the detailed statement of inheritance share of co-inheritors was served only to Gap who is the head of household heir, on the ground that the effect of the tax payment notice to Gap extends to other co-inheritors.

Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; see Article 77 of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); Article 19(1) (see Article 79(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996; see Article 79(2) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); Articles 3 and 8(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Head of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 98Nu648 delivered on January 28, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below acknowledged that the above non-party 1, as his father, died of the non-party 2, the head of family, and did not inherit the head of family. The effect of the duty payment notice against the above non-party 1, the head of family, is not limited to the plaintiff 1 and the remaining plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") who are other co-inheritors. Thus, the tax payment notice cannot be deemed non-existent in relation to the plaintiffs. The defendant attached the duty payment notice to each inheritor's share of inheritance to each inheritor at the time of the above case, and the specific tax amount to be borne by each inheritor is not attached to the duty payment notice or the calculation procedure of the tax payment notice is not attached to each inheritor's name, resident registration number, address, relation, share, etc., and the above non-party 1, as her father, the head of family, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's claim for the tax payment notice against the above non-party 1, the head of family, as other co-inheritors.

In light of the records of this case, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the notification procedure of taxation and the absence or invalidation of taxation disposition as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs

2. Therefore, 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 on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)