A. The amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is required to be included in the “property acquired by inheritance” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 199);

(b) The case holding that the above "property acquired by inheritance" is included in "property acquired by inheritance" in the above paragraph (a) on the ground that it is reasonable to presume that some of the real estate proceeds disposed of before the decedent died, the use of which is not revealed,

A. Article 7-2 (1) 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 before the commencing date of the inheritance, the disposal price or loan money is inherited or donated in cash to his heir, and the inheritance tax is likely to be reduced unfairly, so in order to prevent this, the amount, of which use is objectively unclear, shall be deemed to have been inherited in cash under certain conditions, and shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property. Thus, the amount included in the taxable value of inheritance pursuant to the above provision shall not be deemed to have been included in the taxable value of inherited property unless it is proved that it was inherited in cash, unless it is proved that it was inherited in cash, the burden of proving that the disposal price of inherited property is included in the scope of "property acquired by inheritance" as a matter of principle.

(b) The case holding that the above "property acquired by inheritance" is included in "property acquired by inheritance" as it is reasonable to presume that some of the real estate proceeds disposed of before the decedent died, the use of which has not been revealed, was inherited in cash to the heir.

Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1490 decided Dec. 12, 1989 (Gong1990,282) 89Nu5577 decided Dec. 26, 1989 (Gong1990,417) 91Nu5730 decided Nov. 8, 1991 (Gong192,143)

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu22860 delivered on December 12, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, if the non-party 1 transferred the land and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") of the non-party 2 to the non-party 1,450,00 won on February 15, 198, and his/her heir within 198, and the remaining amount of inheritance tax is calculated and assessed as inheritance tax under Article 24(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes within the scope of the inheritance tax imposed on the non-party 1,66,77, and the heir's inheritance tax, based on the facts that the non-party 1 was deceased on July 14, 198, and his/her heir's inheritance tax imposed on the non-party 1,7,000 won after deducting the total amount of inheritance tax imposed on the non-party 2's heir's property of this case from the total amount of inheritance tax of the non-party 1,67,190 won or less, and there is no error in the application of the tax rate of inheritance tax.

2. Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year before the commencing date of the inheritance, the disposal price or loan money shall be inherited or donated in cash to his heir, and in order to prevent this, the inheritance tax shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, recognizing that the heir has inherited in cash the amount, the use of which is objectively unclear under certain conditions, and, in order to prevent this, the amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under the above provision, unless it is proved that it was inherited in cash, the amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes cannot be considered as "property acquired by inheritance" under Article 24 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, unless it is proved that it was inherited in cash. As such, the burden of proving that the disposal price of inherited property is included in the scope of "property acquired by inheritance" under the above provision, in principle, the tax authority has the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5730, Nov. 8, 1991).

3. However, if it is found that the other party is guilty of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, such taxation disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the other party proves the situation not subject to the empirical rule. According to the judgment of the court below, the real estate of this case is so large that the sales price reaches 1.45 million won, and the non-party 1, the decedent, was deceased and was disposed of for five months, and the real estate of this case was owned only by the above non-party 1, and the above non-party 1, who was hospitalized at the hospital, died during several years, was killed, and the disposal of the real estate of this case was conducted in preparation for the commencement of inheritance due to the death of the above non-party 1, and the plaintiff et al., sought revocation of the imposition disposition of inheritance tax of this case, and the transfer income tax of this case, which was based on the premise that the transfer income tax of this case is succeeded to the plaintiff et al., the heir of this case's duty to pay the inheritance tax of this case, the plaintiff 1's inheritance tax of this case.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)