(a) Where a notice of payment of inheritance tax is given to co-inheritors under the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), and only “A and eight other persons” are served, the validity of such notice of payment

B. Nature and effect of inheritance tax returns

C. Whether an inheritor’s notification of permission to apply for payment by annual installments alone can be deemed to have made an inheritance tax assessment (negative)

(d) In the case of the above "A", the case holding that the defects of the above duty payment notice cannot be deemed to be cured on the ground that co-inheritors knew their tax base and amount of tax and paid the amount of tax, etc.

(e) The nature of a tax payment notice where the tax authorities determine or correct the tax base and amount of tax and notify the tax payment, and Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 18(1) of the Inheritance Tax

F. The case holding that if co-inheritors jointly paid inheritance tax over several occasions on the basis of the above notice of tax payment as referred to in paragraph (a) above, the amount of Gap's inheritance tax should be deemed to

A. Under the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), since there was no provision concerning the procedure to specifically determine the liability for tax payment under the relevant tax law, the liability for tax payment of inheritance tax shall be deemed to have been specifically determined by the notice of tax payment under the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, if the chief of a tax office indicated the taxpayer as “non-party 8” in the notice of tax payment of inheritance tax on co-inheritors and notifies only the entire amount of the inheritance tax to Gap, the said notice alone cannot be deemed to have any taxation that specifically determines the liability for tax payment to the remaining co-inheritors except for the above notice of tax payment, and the imposition of inheritance tax

B. An inheritance tax return filed by an heir is only provided as reference material to impose a taxation, and does not take effect, such as determining the amount of tax or binding the reported taxpayer.

C. It cannot be deemed that an inheritance tax was imposed solely on the inheritor’s notification of permission on an application for permission to pay annual installments.

(d) In the case of the above "A", the case holding that the defects of the above duty payment notice cannot be deemed to be cured on the ground that co-inheritors knew each of their tax base and tax amount, etc. and submitted an application for permission to pay annual installments, and received the notification of permission, and received the payment of annual installments tax.

E. In a case where the tax authorities determine or correct the tax base and amount of tax and notify the taxpayer of the determination or correction of the determination or correction of the tax base and the nature of the taxation disposition that generates the effect of specific tax liability by notifying the taxpayer of the determination or correction, and also has the same nature as a collection disposition that orders the performance of the finalized tax liability. Accordingly, a tax payment notice that may be served by the representative under the name of the representative under the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a tax payment notice as a collection disposition ordering the performance of the finalized tax claim, and the mutual solidarity relationship between the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment under Article 18(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not related to the establishment and determination of the finalized tax liability, and thus, each specific tax liability should be individually determined, even if the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment.

F. The case holding that, in a case where co-inheritors jointly paid inheritance tax over several occasions by the notice of payment under Paragraph (a) above, it is reasonable to deem that the co-inheritors intended to pay inheritance tax in proportion to each inheritance share, and thus, the inheritance tax amount of Gap should be deemed to be successively appropriated from the inheritance tax amount paid over several occasions, and that the whole tax amount of Gap cannot be deemed to have been appropriated

a.D. (f) Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 20(c) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 28(e) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu98 delivered on July 27, 1982 (Gong1982,824) 86Nu726 delivered on January 31, 1989 (Gong1989,357). Supreme Court Decision 83Nu674 delivered on February 28, 1984 (Gong1984,632) 85Nu81 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1563 delivered on December 24, 1985) 84Nu242 delivered on December 24, 1985 (Gong1986,326), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu145 delivered on March 27, 1984 (Gong1984,7329, 1985) 197Nu484859 delivered on May 184, 1985).

Plaintiff 1 and eight plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na46989 delivered on April 19, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(1) According to Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since the amount of national taxes is determined according to the procedure under the Inheritance Tax Act, except in special cases, the amount of taxes of inheritance is determined according to the procedure under the Inheritance Tax Act. Meanwhile, Article 25(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982) provides that when the taxable value is determined differently from the above provisions of Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, the taxpayer should be notified thereof, and there is no provision regarding the procedure to specifically determine the liability for payment of inheritance tax under the Inheritance Tax Act, the liability for payment of inheritance tax shall be deemed to have been specifically determined by the National Tax Collection Act. According to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the head of a tax office shall issue to the taxpayer a notice specifying the taxable year, items, basis for calculating the amount of taxes, payment deadline, and place of payment. If an heir appears to have a duty to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of property received or to be paid among inherited property, it shall be determined within 2816.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party died on January 6, 1974 and the non-party 1, 2, his wife, and the remaining plaintiffs, who were his wife, jointly inherited the deceased's property. The Seoul Seongbuk Northern District Tax Office, under the defendant, calculated the taxable value of inherited property on April 1, 1975 as 4,071,434,405 won, and determined the inheritance tax amount as 2,59,512,780 won and notified the above tax amount as 2,59,512,780 won, without classifying the above tax amount according to the ratio of statutory inheritance by the plaintiffs, the above tax payment notice was delivered only to the plaintiff 1, and the above tax office failed to assess part of inherited property at the time of the above imposition of inheritance tax, and determined that the remaining tax amount should not be viewed as legitimate within 180,000,000 won for the plaintiff 1 to whom the above tax payment notice was issued.

The Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7996 delivered on November 10, 1989 rendered on the party members of the Republic of Korea and the Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7996 delivered on November 10, 1989 was enacted on December 21, 1982 by Article 25-2 of the current Inheritance Tax Act, and it is not appropriate in this case.

(2) Furthermore, the lower court determined the Defendant’s assertion as follows.

First, when the plaintiffs submitted tax invoices on April 6, 1974 to the head of the above tax office. The plaintiff 1 and 8 other persons liable for tax payment filed an application for annual payment, and the inheritance tax was not paid in full by 3 times. The plaintiff 2 filed an application for annual payment, and the plaintiff 2 filed a request for the extension of the due date for annual payment. The plaintiff 1 and 8 persons are themselves liable for tax payment, and the above defects were cured by 1 and 8 persons. The plaintiff 2 notified the above tax base and 8 persons liable for tax payment. The plaintiff 1 and 4 tax payment notice cannot be deemed to have been issued individually because the plaintiff 1 and 4 tax payment notice cannot be deemed to have been issued as reference materials for taxation, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff 1 and 2 notified each of the above tax base and 8 persons liable for tax payment notice to the effect that they were not jointly and severally liable for tax payment. The plaintiff 1 and 2 were not jointly and severally liable for tax payment.

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiffs, other than the plaintiff 1, are jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax with the plaintiff 1 pursuant to Article 18 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act in calculating the specific amount of tax paid by the plaintiffs in this case as unjust enrichment, the court below determined that the remaining plaintiffs were 808,267,193 (X6/19 of 2,59,512,780) out of the amount of tax assessed on April 1, 1975, the extinctive prescription of KRW 853,512,780 of the amount of tax paid by the plaintiffs 197.3, 207, 197, 207, 309, 1979, 197, 197, 209, 197, 197, 207, 209, 197, 197, 207, 1975, 209, 107.7, 19.7.

The purport of the judgment of the court below is, in short, the right to claim the repayment of the portion seven times from April 11, 1975 to December 31, 1983 out of the inheritance tax amount of this case, which the plaintiffs jointly paid nine times in total, has expired. The inheritance tax amount of plaintiff 1 was fully appropriated from the tax amount paid by the plaintiffs first two times, and accordingly, the tax amount paid voluntarily on March 27, 1987 (gold KRW 1,300,296,40) which has not expired is the remaining tax amount of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 1.

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s aforementioned measures that the Plaintiffs appropriated the entire inheritance tax amount of Plaintiff 1 from the tax amount paid jointly by the Plaintiffs on April 11, 1975 and July 1975.

According to the judgment of the court below, even according to the purport that the plaintiffs jointly paid the inheritance tax of this case, and according to the records, the plaintiffs had already submitted an inheritance tax return and payment statement under the joint name of "Plaintiff 1 and eight persons" before being served with the notice of payment in the form of "Plaintiff 1 and eight persons", and they can be seen as having filed a petition that the tax amount would continue to be paid in the joint name after being served with the notice of payment, or that the application for annual payment or the extension of payment deadline for annual installments after being served with the notice of payment. (However, the receipt of additional payment on May 30, 1980 and the receipt of additional payment on March 31, 1981 are stated respectively as the payer, but it seems to have been merely the difference in the indication.) The plaintiffs are deemed to have expressed their intention to pay each tax amount in proportion to each inheritance share. Accordingly, the inheritance tax amount of plaintiff 1 should be deemed to have been successively appropriated from the tax amount of this case that was paid in total nine times, and the whole amount of the tax amount of the plaintiff 17.

If so, the court below calculated the inheritance tax amount of plaintiff 1 included in the tax payable on March 27, 1987, and ordered only the return of the remaining amount after deducting it to the defendant, but ordered the full return to the defendant, the court below's order to correct the interpretation of the party's expression of intent, which led to the failure to exhaust all deliberations, and the arguments that point this out are reasonable.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)