Although it is possible to calculate the market price, it is illegal to evaluate it as a supplementary assessment method.

Even though it was possible to calculate the value of the inherited property at the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax, if it was assessed and imposed on the inherited property according to the supplementary assessment method, the burden of proving that it is difficult to calculate the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On October 31, 1990, the disposition of imposition of each inheritance tax and defense tax stated in the separate tax assessment column against the plaintiffs on October 31, 1990 shall be revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑1호증, 갑7호증의 1 내지 11, 갑8호증, 갑12호증, 갑14호증의 1 내지 12, 갑15호증, 을1 내지 7호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 이ㅇㅇ이 1986. 2. 16. 사망함으로 인하여 그 처인 원고 엄ㅇㅇ와 그 자녀들인 나머지 원고들이 별지목록기재 이사건 부동산을 공동상속한 사실, 피고는 원고들이 상속세법 제20조 에 의한 신고기간내에 상속신고를 하지 아니하자, 상속세등을 부과함에 있어서 상속재산을 상속세 부과당시의 가액으로 평가하되 부과당시의 시가를 산정하기가 어렵다는 이유로 상속세법시행령 제5조 제2항 제1호 에 의하여 평가한 가액을 상속재산가액으로 하여 1988. 12. 26. 원고들에 대하여 이사건 부동산중 별지목록 1내지 13기재 부동산에 대한 상속세 및 방위세로 금502,745,880원과 금91,408,340원을 부과한 사실, 그후 피고는 이사건 부동산중 같은목록 14,15기재 부동산이 상속재산에서 누락된 것을 발견하고 이를 상속재산가액에 합산하여 총 상속재산가액 금943,398,659원에 대하여 상속세 금505,065,060원 및 방위세 금91,830,010원을 산출하고, 1989. 3. 13. 원고들에 대하여 위 당초 부과처분과의 차액인 상속세 금2,319,180원과 방위세 금421,670원을 추가로 부과하였다가, 원고들의 상속재산 협의분할로 위 상속세 금505,065,060원과 방위세 금91,830,010원을 원고들의 협의에 의한 별지 과세처분목록기재 상속비율에 따라 나눈 후 1990. 10. 31. 원고들에 대하여 주문기재 이사건 부과처분을 한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs should, in principle, impose the inheritance tax on the basis of the value of the inherited property calculated on the basis of the market price, and can impose the inheritance tax on the basis of the value calculated on the basis of other methods only when the market price cannot be calculated on the basis of the market price. The defendant's evaluation of inherited property at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, while the defendant assessed inherited property at the price at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, although it is not difficult to calculate the value based on the market price, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it assessed inherited property at the price according to the supplementary evaluation method prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is not the market price, and even if it is not, the disposition of this case should be revoked on the basis that the defendant assessed inherited property at the later time than the market price on the basis of the date of delivery of the advance notice of inheritance tax, on which the defendant knew that the inheritance tax had the inherited property, and the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax stated in the attached

First, according to the provisions of Article 20 and Article 9 of the Inheritance Tax Act, whether it is legitimate to impose this case on the basis of the value of inherited property by supplementary valuation methods prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, an inheritor shall submit to the head of the competent tax office a report stating the type, quantity, and value of inherited property and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree within six months from the date of the commencement of the inheritance. If an inheritor fails to make such a report, the value of inherited property shall be levied on the basis of the value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance rather than the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In addition, according to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the value at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax shall be calculated on the basis of the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax. Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act provides that the value assessed by the rate at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax at the time of other areas.

However, in this case, the defendant assessed the value of the inherited property at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax by assessing the value of the inherited property because the plaintiffs failed to file a report on inheritance as seen above, and assessed the value of the inherited property at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax could not be determined by the above supplementary evaluation method because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax. Meanwhile, the market price at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax refers to the exchange value, which is in principle an exchange value. However, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the concept includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner in lieu of the market price. Therefore, it cannot be said that the market price cannot be determined solely because there is no transaction example at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax. The general rule of inheritance tax is merely a guide for the affairs inside the national tax administrative agency and there is no legal restraint on the general public or the general public, and it is merely a representative example that can be viewed as the market price under each subparagraph.

Even if the assessment method of the above inherited property was wrong, the defendant asserts that the market price at the time of imposition of the inheritance tax assessed by the Korea Appraisal Board exceeds the total assessment amount of inherited property, which is the basis for the imposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate as a result. However, the statement of the evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3 and No. 9 alone cannot be seen as the total value at the time of imposition of the inherited property in this case, and there is no other evidence to

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is not necessary to determine the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the revocation is justified.