Applicant 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Do Tax Office

1. With respect to the Supreme Court case 98Du892, a petition is filed for adjudication as to whether Article 9(4)4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; Act No. 4805, Dec. 22, 1994) is unconstitutional.

2. Article 18(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981; Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 196); and Article 9(4)4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 196) shall be dismissed.

The reasons for the application shall be considered.

1. Article 18(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981; Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 25-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 196); a court’s request for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of a law, the law should be the premise of a judgment (Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act). The issue of the case described in the order is that the plaintiffs’ claim for revocation is unconstitutional; the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify the plaintiffs of the unconstitutionality of a tax amount of KRW 8,080,326 and KRW 326 of the inheritance tax; each applicant’s remaining tax amount of KRW 781,93,4838,5715,7157,57,7519, etc.

2. As to Article 9 (4) 4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990; Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996)

Article 9(4)4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990, and amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994) which is the premise of the judgment of this case among these legal provisions, is doubtful as to the unconstitutionality by comprehensively delegating the important matters of duty to pay taxes or essential matters to subordinate laws. Thus, there is a reason for requesting a judgment on the unconstitutionality of this part, and the remaining provisions are unlawful because they are not the premise of the judgment of this case.

3. Therefore, under Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of Article 9(4)4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; Act No. 4805, Dec. 22, 1994) shall be requested, and all applications for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of statutes shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)