(a) Inheritance tax payment notice and collection notification method to co-inheritors;

(b) In imposing inheritance tax on co-inheritors, the legality of the duty payment notice, stating the total amount of tax in the tax payment notice, attaching a detailed statement of notified tax amount by joint and several tax obligor

A. Since the joint and several tax liability of co-inheritors is not established by the requirement that the other co-inheritors not pay the inheritance tax payable by each co-inheritors, the duty payment notice having the effect of specifically determining each of their respective tax liability on co-inheritors shall be separately and specifically determined by the amount of tax to be paid individually to each of the co-inheritors. However, the notice of collection having the effect of claiming the performance of the tax liability fixed to each co-inheritors can be given to the whole inheritance tax liable for joint and several tax liability.

B. If the tax authority entered the total amount of tax payable in a tax payment notice, the tax base and tax rate for the grounds for calculation thereof, and the amount of tax credit for each co-inheritors, as well as the amount of tax notified by each co-inheritors, stating the ratio of inherited property possession by co-inheritors and the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors calculated according to such ratio, and then issued a tax payment notice to the co-inheritors indicated as a taxpayer on the tax payment notice, it is reasonable to deem that the total amount of tax payable in the tax payment notice was indicated as the amount of tax notice jointly and severally liable for payment by co-inheritors pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and that the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors was individually imposed and collected by each co-inheritors based on the detailed statement of tax amount notified by each co-inheritors issued by attaching the tax payment notice to the tax payment

Articles 18 and 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

[Judgment changed by this judgment], Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6280 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 820)

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Attorneys Jeon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu24617 delivered on March 26, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below acknowledged that the defendant, as of December 21, 191, imposed inheritance tax on the plaintiffs, who are co-inheritors of the deceased non-party, as of December 21, 191, the name of the taxpayer is "5 persons other than the plaintiff 1," "5 persons other than the plaintiff 2," "5 persons other than the plaintiff 4," "5 persons other than the plaintiff 5," and "5 persons other than the plaintiff 6," and the tax base of the inheritance tax and its tax rate stated on the aggregate tax amount to be paid by the heir, and it was unlawful to determine whether the tax base and its tax rate were legitimate, and the duty to pay the inheritance tax in accordance with Article 25-2 and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act was established abstractly at the time of commencement of the duty to pay inheritance tax, and thus, the defendant was not obligated to pay the tax base and its tax base and its tax rate to the heir under the provisions of Article 9 of the Inheritance Tax Act.

2. Of course, co-inheritors are liable to pay inheritance tax on themselves according to their respective possession ratio of property received or to be received by them, as well as to jointly and severally pay inheritance tax on other co-inheritors within the scope of their property (Article 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act). Since such joint and several tax liability of co-inheritors is not established as the requirement that other co-inheritors not pay inheritance tax to each of their respective co-inheritors, the duty payment notice having the effect of specifically determining each of their respective tax liability should be classified by classifying the amount of tax to be paid to each of their respective co-inheritors. However, the notice of collection having the effect of claiming the performance of tax liability to each co-inheritors should be deemed to be possible for all of the inheritance taxes with the joint and several tax liability.

However, according to the records, the tax payment notice of this case (No. 1-1 through 6) issued to each of the co-inheritors with each of the plaintiffs as taxpayer each of the plaintiffs as the taxpayer's name is indicated in addition to the tax payment period, the total tax base, tax rate, additional tax amount, and calculation basis thereof for taxation belonging year, total tax base, tax rate, additional tax amount, and deductible tax amount, and all of the matters demanded to be specified in Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act. The tax payment statement (No. 3-3) attached to each of the above tax payment notices include the relation between the plaintiffs and the decedent, the plaintiffs' name, resident registration number, and address, the ratio of possession of each of the plaintiffs' inherited property and the defense tax amount to be paid individually by each of the co-inheritors. Thus, in imposing inheritance tax, if the tax office imposed inheritance tax, etc. on co-inheritors, the tax payment notice shall be jointly and severally stated in the tax payment notice along with the tax base and calculation basis thereof, as well as the tax amount to be paid by each of the co-inheritors and the co-inheritors's liable tax amount.

Of the previous opinions expressed by the members, even if the tax authority attached a tax payment notice to co-inheritors in imposing inheritance tax, it would not be deemed that the tax amount to be borne by each taxpayer is individually specified and notified (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6280, Feb. 27, 1990).

3. Nevertheless, the court below judged that the taxation disposition in this case was unlawful on the same ground as the court below decided otherwise. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of duty payment notice to co-inheritors, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-young, Kim Yong-chul, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho