[1] Whether "the purpose of use under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act is not objectively clear, in a case where the decedent disbursed the proceeds of the disposal of inherited property for a third party but the relationship between the decedent and the third party is not revealed (affirmative)

[2] Whether a de facto spouse constitutes a spouse under Article 11(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (negative)

[1] The purpose of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996) is to prevent the decedent from concealing his/her property before his/her birth and unfairly reducing his/her inheritance tax. If the amount acquired by the decedent by disposing of his/her inherited property is paid by the Company A to the Company B as the construction cost of the contracted quasi-construction, the decedent and the Company A must have a causal relationship such as a donation or indemnity agreement. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the purpose of use is objectively obvious before the causal relationship between the decedent and the Company A is revealed, and if the causal relationship between the decedent and the Company A is revealed, whether it can be again included in the taxable value of inherited property.

[2] Article 11(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the sum of 100 million won shall be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property by the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of 6,00,000 won by the number of 6,000,000, if a spouse has a spouse to the inheritee. The spouse refers to a spouse under the law, and the de facto spouse in a de facto marital relationship does not fall under this.

[1] Article 7-2 (see Article 15 of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996) / [2] Article 11 (1) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662, Dec. 31, 1993) (see Article 19 of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du3075 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 159) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10197 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3164) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15285 delivered on November 29, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 235 delivered on December 8, 1998) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6897 delivered on April 26, 191 (Gong191, 1541)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Head of Public Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu3959 delivered on December 18, 1998

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 28, 1989, the court below determined that the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, sold the non-party 2.404 square meters (hereinafter "land in this case") owned by the non-party 1, to the non-party 3,053,080,000 won, and that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the deceased non-party 1, to the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the representative director, was not the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, the non-party 4, who was the non-party 1, to the non-party 1, to the non-party 2,000,000 won for the sale price of the real property in this case, and that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to the non-party 1, the construction work.

However, the purport of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act is to prevent any property from being concealed before the inheritee’s birth and to reduce inheritance tax unjustly. If Nonparty 1, the inheritee, paid 673,100,000 won to the movable property for the construction cost of the new tourist hotel construction project, which was contracted by the public interest industry, to the public interest industry, the cause of property contribution, such as donation or indemnity agreement, must be the relationship between Nonparty 1 and public interest industry. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the above use of KRW 673,100,00 is objectively obvious until the relationship between Nonparty 1 and public interest industry becomes known (where the cause of the property contribution was revealed, if the relationship between the property contribution and the public interest industry, it shall be determined again whether there is property to be included in the taxable value of the inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du12345, Dec. 8, 198; 9Nu295, Nov. 29, 1996).

Nevertheless, the court below recognized only the facts as stated in its holding, and concluded that the use of the above amount of KRW 673,100,000 is objectively clear, and therefore, it is not subject to inclusion in the taxable value of inherited property. It is obvious that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and such illegality has affected the judgment. The ground of appeal No.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 11(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that the aggregate amount of KRW 100 million shall be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property by multiplying the amount calculated by the number of marriage years by the amount of KRW 6,000,000, when a spouse has a spouse for an ancestor. Here, the spouse refers to a spouse under the law, and the de facto spouse in a de facto marital relationship does not constitute a de facto spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du3075, Dec. 8, 1998).

Nevertheless, the court below held that the non-party 1, with the opposing opinion, should deduct the amount of KRW 202,00,000 as personal deductions for the non-party 1's spouse in a de facto marital relationship with the non-party 1 (=6,000,000 + 17 + 100,000,000) from the taxable value of inherited property, after recognizing the fact that the non-party 1 had been married with the non-party 2 on September 1, 1974 and actually died as a husband and wife. It is clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the spouse's meaning under Article 11 (1) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, which affected the judgment. The ground for appeal No. 2 pointing this out has merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)