(a) The validity of the initial tax disposition, in cases where the initial tax disposition is increased;

(b) Whether a dispute may be raised against the tax base and amount determined by the original disposition in litigation procedures concerning the increase or correction of the amount of taxation already determined.

C. The meaning of the amount of gift tax stipulated in Article 18(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act

A. In a case where an increase in the tax base and amount of inheritance tax are found after the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, and there is an omission or error in the said tax base and amount of tax, the original disposition is not a disposition to determine only the portion exceeding the tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition but a disposition to determine the tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the tax base and amount in the original disposition according to the results found by a reinvestigation. Therefore, if an increase in the tax base and amount of tax is determined, the original disposition shall

B. Even if the taxation disposition became final and conclusive upon the lapse of the objection period or the termination of the pre-trial procedure, and the so-called non-existence or non-explosion was established, the validity of such a final determination is premised on the existence of the said disposition. As such, insofar as the original taxation disposition loses its independent existence value as it was absorptiond into the above increased reorganization disposition, there is no room to acknowledge the non-explosion or non-explosion. Therefore, in litigation proceedings on the increased reorganization disposition, a taxpayer may contest not only the tax base and tax amount increased by the increased reorganization but also the tax base and tax amount determined by the original disposition

(c) The term "amount of gift tax" in Article 18 (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act means the amount of gift tax to be imposed or imposed on donated property, in the case of non-taxable donated property, which is the amount of gift tax to be calculated by assuming

(a)Article 25(c) of the Inheritance Tax Act;

A. or Supreme Court Decision 83Nu539 delivered on April 10, 1984; 84Nu225 delivered on December 11, 1984; 77Nu304 delivered on June 12, 1979

Attorney Lee Il-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and four others

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu261 delivered on January 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In a case where there is an omission or error in the tax base and amount of inheritance tax after the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, and an increase in such tax base and amount of tax is found, the original disposition is not a disposition to determine only the portion exceeding the tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition without the original disposition, but a determination of the tax base and amount as a whole by including the tax base and amount in the original disposition in accordance with the results found by a reinvestigation, and thus, the original disposition shall be deemed to be extinguished as a matter of course. Even if the original disposition became final and conclusive upon the expiration of the objection period or the completion of the pre-trial procedure, even if the original disposition became null and void, its validity is based on the premise that the subsequent disposition remains effective, so long as the original disposition loses independent value by absorbing the above increased tax base and amount of tax and amount of tax, there is no room for recognizing the absence or absence, and therefore, a taxpayer in the litigation procedure for the increased disposition cannot contest the tax base and amount of tax determined by the original disposition as a whole, and thus, the original disposition can be decided as unlawful.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 18(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that when the donated property is added to the inherited property, the amount of the gift tax (amount equivalent to the calculated tax amount) shall be deducted from the amount of the gift tax (amount equivalent to the calculated tax amount) on the donated property. In this case, the amount of the gift tax or non-taxable donated property, which is imposed or imposed on the donated property, shall be interpreted as the amount of the gift tax to be calculated, assuming that it is a taxable object, in the case of the gift tax or non-taxable donated property

Where an ancestor donated property to a profit-making corporation which is exempt from gift tax within one year before the commencement of inheritance, such interpretation of the amount of gift tax on donated property to be deducted from the amount of inheritance tax calculated under Article 18 (4) of the above Act is contrary to the equity in taxation because there is a little amount of tax imposed on the actual donated property in cases where an ancestor donated property to a profit-making corporation which is exempted from gift tax with an intention to avoid high rate of inheritance tax, and the heir imposes inheritance tax only on the inherited property, and it is contrary to the legislative intent of Article 4 (1) of the above Act in order to prevent an act of unreasonably reducing inheritance tax by evading high rate of inheritance tax by donation of property subject to gift tax to an heir or a person other than an heir before commencement of inheritance. Since a profit-making corporation is less in comparison with inheritance tax by legacy or a private donation, it is inconsistent with equity, and if the amount of gift tax to be deducted exceeds the amount of inheritance tax calculated under Article 18 (4) of the above Act, such excess amount should be reasonably interpreted in addition to the amount of gift tax on donated property tax.

However, since the amount of tax calculated by the same method as the theory of theory is not different from the amount of inheritance tax on donated property, it cannot be adopted because it violates the express text of the amount of gift tax (amount equivalent to the calculated tax amount) which is clearly stipulated as the amount of deductible tax under Article 18(3) of the same

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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)