A. Whether Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is null and void since it violates the constitutional spirit concerning the no taxation without representation or the guarantee of property rights (negative)

B. Whether a dispute arises as to the existence or scope of a claim, which is inherited property, at the time of commencement of the inheritance, can be viewed as the value of the claim (affirmative with qualification)

A. Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) provides that where an ancestor disposes of, or bears an obligation to, inherited property within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, the disposal proceeds or loan money is highly likely to be donated to, an heir in cash or inherited to an heir in cash. As such, among them, the purpose of the disposal proceeds or loan money is to prevent the act of unfairly reducing inheritance tax by deeming that the heir is inherited in cash within a reasonable scope with respect to the amount objectively unclear, as being included in the taxable value of inherited property under certain conditions, and thereby,

B. If there is a dispute as to the existence or scope of a claim, which is inherited property at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and the scope of the claim is determined by the court’s decision, etc. until the closing of argument in the relevant tax disposition revocation lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, the amount determined by the judgment shall be deemed as the

A. Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 23 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu510 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1507) Decision 89Nu11 Decided December 13, 1989 (Gong190,294)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Byung- disease

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8376 delivered on May 20, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The court below held that the provisions of Article 7-2 (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) shall be applied to the cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance in cash and the proceeds from the disposal of property or the proceeds from loans are likely to be donated or inherited to an heir in cash, and thus, the court below tried to prevent the act of unreasonably reducing inheritance tax by recognizing the amount of money, the use of which is objectively unclear, as being inherited in cash within a reasonable scope, as the heir recognizes it as inherited in accordance with a certain condition, and thereby preventing the act of unfairly reducing inheritance tax by including it in the taxable amount of inheritance tax. Thus, it shall not be deemed that there is no invalid provision contrary to the constitutional spirit as to the no taxation without law

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The judgment of the court below on the point that the plaintiff's theory points out (the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1,00,000 won was lent to the non-party 1,00,000 won and could not be returned to the non-party 1,00,000 won out of the disposal amount of real estate within one year before the plaintiff's deceased) shall be justified in light of the evidence relation as stated in the judgment below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process.

We cannot accept the issue because it is merely merely criticizes the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

3. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The court below held that the defendant imposed inheritance tax on the inherited property of this case on two occasions as claimed by the plaintiffs, and then revoked the taxation disposition of this case again, but the defendant's revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is due to the fact that there was an error in calculating the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and thus, it did not violate the principle of retroactive prohibition of taxation or the principle of respect for non-taxation, as alleged by the plaintiffs, since the defendant corrected the error and made the taxation disposition of this case in accordance with the law at the time of commencement of inheritance. This decision of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the principle of respect for non-taxation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there

4. Judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 3 by the plaintiffs' attorney and the grounds of appeal by the defendant performer

The court below affirmed that the above bank's claim for a time deposit against the non-party deceased's Korean Commercial Bank's beneficiary interest branch of the commercial bank was dismissed on the ground that the above bank denied the establishment of the deposit contract and filed a lawsuit against the above bank. However, the above deposit contract was rejected on the ground that the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's intention was made, but the above bank partially accepted the conjunctive claimant's claim for damages on the ground that the above non-party's employer should be held liable for tort, and the above bank paid a sum of 237,00,000,000 won for the above bank at the time of the plaintiff's death. The court below held that the claim against the above bank at the time of the non-party deceased's death was 237,000,000 won for the above bank and damages incurred from the tort until December 6, 1983 by the above non-party 241,592 won.

In a case where there is a dispute as to the existence or scope of an inherited property at the time of commencing the inheritance, if the scope of the claim is specifically determined by the court’s decision, etc. until the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition, it shall be deemed that the amount determined by the decision is the value of the claim reasonably assessed by the current status at the time of commencing the inheritance, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, all arguments that held the judgment of the court below to the same purport are inconsistent with the legal principles as to

5. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)