A. The meaning of property on which a mortgage or a collateral security is established under Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 5-2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

(b) The case holding that it is unlawful to impose gift tax on the basis of the amount appraised based on the maximum amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the share of a third party, not the donated share

A. Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 5-2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990); and Article 5-2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 199) refer to the case where a mortgage or a right to collateral

B. The case holding that the gift tax is illegal on the basis of the amount assessed on the basis of the maximum amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the share of a third party, not the donated share.

Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 5-2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26920 delivered on June 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990), which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 34-5 of the same Act, and Article 5-2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, mean the case where a mortgage or a right to collateral security is established on a donated property itself. Thus, the court below held that the imposition of gift tax of this case on the basis of the amount assessed by the defendant on the basis of the maximum amount of the claim secured by the right to collateral security established on the non-party’s share in the same forest as the Plaintiff donated in accordance with the above Acts and subordinate statutes is unlawful, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is that the maximum amount of secured claim of the right to collateral security established on the non-party's share in the forest of this case is based on the market price of the forest of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the value of the plaintiff's share assessed on the basis of this maximum amount as the market price in accordance with the experience law. However, since the above inheritance tax law and the enforcement decree of this case cannot be inferred or expanded in such a case, it is not reasonable to accept the issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)