Whether one of the co-inheritors, by an agreement division of inherited property, can be considered as a donation from other co-inheritors, for the acquisition of property exceeding an inherent share of inherited property.

Even if one of the co-inheritors acquires the property exceeding his own share of inherited property as a result of an agreement division under the provisions of Article 1013 of the Civil Act with respect to inherited property among the co-inheritors, it shall be considered to have received the property from the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it shall not be deemed to have received the property from the

Article 29-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 1013 and 1015 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu710 Decided March 27, 1984, 85Nu70 Decided October 8, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu724 Decided January 20, 1987 (dong)

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu52 delivered on May 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 1015 of the Civil Act, the division of inherited property is effective retroactively from the time of the commencement of the inheritance. This means that the property belonging to each co-inheritors by division is already succeeded to a person who was directly divided from the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and the division does not result in the transfer of the inherited property among co-inheritors by division.

Therefore, even if one of the co-inheritors acquires the property exceeding his own share of inheritance as a result of an agreement division under Article 1013 of the Civil Act with respect to inherited property among co-inheritors, it shall be deemed to have been succeeded from the inheritee at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and it shall not be deemed to have been donated from other co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu70, Oct. 8, 1985).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)