Where no details of calculation of tax base and amount of tax are stated in a tax payment notice or such calculation statement is attached, the legality of the tax payment notice and the method of issuing inheritance tax notice to co-inheritors.

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996) provides that the head of a tax office shall specify the taxable year, tax item, tax base, grounds for calculation, payment deadline, and place of payment in a tax payment notice, and shall notify the tax base and amount of tax along with the calculation statement. Thus, if the tax base and amount of tax are not stated in a tax payment notice or the calculation statement is not attached to the calculation statement, it cannot be deemed a legitimate tax payment notice. In addition, even if a tax base and amount of tax are determined only for one co-inheritors among co-inheritors pursuant to the proviso of Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, the amount of tax imposed on each co-inheritors, as well as the name of co-inheritors, should be specified in the tax payment notice.

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

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7401 delivered on April 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 1393), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4749 delivered on March 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1269), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7441 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2069), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7830 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3677), Supreme Court Decision 98Du10738 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 89)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu22527 delivered on November 12, 1998

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal and supplementary grounds of appeal are examined together.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party died on November 17, 1991, and became his wife, and the remaining plaintiffs were his wife, and on May 16, 1992, the plaintiff 1 declared the amount of inherited property to KRW 2,85,516,220, and the amount of inheritance tax to the defendant as KRW 678,468,447, and the defendant recognized the amount of inherited property as KRW 2,905,646,05 on December 16, 1994 and imposed and notified the amount of inherited property to the plaintiffs as KRW 1,021,62,480, which was deducted from the amount of voluntary payment. At the time, the defendant stated "the plaintiff 1 and three others" in the name column of the taxpayer, "the basis for calculation, tax rate, additional tax, additional tax, tax base, and resident registration number of the plaintiff 1 and the heir's share ratio were 3,000,000."

Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant tax notice was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiffs’ assertion, namely, the Plaintiff’s claim that the instant tax notice was unlawful, because the amount of taxes to be paid is not specified individually and only the total amount of inheritance tax is written, and that there are defects such as the tax base and the calculation specifications of tax amount are not attached, even though the “examination protocol attached to the said tax notice” does not contain the subdivided amount of tax by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the amount of tax to be paid by each Plaintiff was individually imposed and notified in accordance with the “examination Protocol,” as the Plaintiff’s respective inheritance ratio could easily be multiplied by the total amount of tax.

In light of the records, it is just that the court below recognized that the tax notice of this case was accompanied by the "written review report" as stated in its holding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

However, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193, Dec. 31, 1996) provides that a tax notice shall specify taxable year, tax item, tax base, grounds for calculation, payment deadline, and place of payment and shall be attached with the tax base and calculation statement and shall be notified to the head of a tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Nu79, Apr. 197, 199). Thus, if a tax notice fails to specify the tax base and amount of tax, or fails to attach the calculation statement, it shall not be deemed a legitimate notice of tax payment. In addition, even if a tax base and amount of tax are notified to only one of co-inheritors pursuant to the proviso of Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, the taxpayer’s name and the amount of tax imposed on each taxpayer’s property (see, etc.).

In other words, there is no evidence to deem that the tax base and the calculation statement of the tax amount were entered in the instant tax payment notice or that the calculation statement was attached thereto, and even if the total tax amount and the inheritance ratio were entered in the instant tax payment notice and the instant tax examination report as acknowledged by the court below, so long as the amount of tax divided by each plaintiff is not indicated accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the amount of tax imposed by each taxpayer was specified solely on the above written notice, and thus, the instant

Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant duty payment notice was unlawful is a result of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the inheritance tax payment notice, and the allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is justified.

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)