A. Whether the term “property which was entered into a de facto lease contract” under Article 9(4)4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) includes a case where a loan for use is entered into (negative)

B. The purport of Article 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990); and the method of assessing the value of inherited property where part of a building which is inherited property is leased and not leased.

A. Article 9 (4) 4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) cannot be interpreted as including the case where a loan contract for use is concluded under the Civil Act.

B. The provision of Article 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190) concerning the evaluation of inherited property shall be prescribed in the purport that Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act intends to approach the market value principle under Article 9(1) of the same Act concerning the evaluation of inherited property pursuant to Article 9(4) of the same Act. Thus, in a case where part of a building, which is inherited property, is leased and partly not leased, the value of the former shall be assessed by the method under Article 9(4)4 of the same Act, Article 5-2 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9(1) of the same Act, Article 5(1) and (2)1 of the same Act, separately from the leased part, and the value of the latter shall be assessed by the method

A. B. Article 9(b) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 5 and 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu478 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 828)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu20574 delivered on January 23, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal

1. The property, the lease contract of which is de facto concluded under Article 9(4)4 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) cannot be interpreted as including the case of a loan for use under the Civil Act. This is obvious in light of the language of the above provision itself and the content of Article 5-2 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, May 1, 1990) providing for the method of evaluating the value of the inherited property, the lease contract

In addition, the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the third floor of the building of this case was leased to the Korea Telecommunication Co., Ltd. at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. The court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing such as the theory of lawsuit

2. The provision of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act concerning the evaluation of inherited property is stipulated in the purport of approaching the market value principle of Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act concerning the evaluation of inherited property pursuant to the provision of Article 9(4) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu478, Apr. 14, 1987). Thus, in a case where part of a building which is inherited property is leased and part of a building is not leased, the value of the former shall be assessed by the method stipulated in Article 9(4)4 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the value of the latter shall be assessed by the method stipulated in Article 9(1) of the same Act, Article 5(1) and (2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. It shall not be deemed that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the theory of small claim and Article 9(4) of the same Act.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

All appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)