Methods of appraising the value of donated real estate with two or more collateral security;

Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 9(4)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security shall be determined within the scope of the secured debt value of the real estate. Therefore, the subordinated collateral security is usually established when the maximum debt amount, which is the scope of the right to collateral security, is deducted from the total collateral value of the real estate, is insufficient. Therefore, if there are two or more collateral mortgages, the aggregate of the maximum debt amount shall be evaluated as the value of donated property.

Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198); Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act

Contributors; and

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu603 delivered on December 27, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 9(4)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security shall be determined within the scope of the secured value of the real estate. Therefore, the subordinated collateral security is usually established when there is time to deduct the maximum debt amount, which is the scope of the right to collateral security, from the total collateral value of the real estate. Therefore, if there are two or more joint mortgages, the aggregate of the maximum debt amount shall be evaluated as the value of the donated property. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s taxation of this case was lawful by evaluating the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the two secured claims on the real estate established at the time of donation as the value of the donated property, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the value of the donated property.

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)