(a) Whether an amount of debts borne by an ancestor within one year shall be included in the taxable value of inherited property if the total amount is at least a certain amount in total, regardless of the cause thereof (affirmative);

B. Whether the amount of the obligation to return the lease deposit for the building owned by the inheritee, which is the owner of the building, should be calculated in calculating the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, if there are other land owners, in proportion to the amount of the

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 inherited property within one year prior to the date of commencement of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the category of property and the amount is at least 50 million won, or where the ancestor bears an obligation, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and its use is objectively unclear, such amount shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4, if the total amount is at least 50,00 won, or the amount is at least 50,000 won, regardless of the cause of the inheritance.” Thus, a debt borne by an ancestor within one year shall be

B. If the leased building was owned by the decedent, barring any special circumstance, the obligation to return the leased deposit is also the obligation owed by the decedent as a matter of course, barring any other special circumstance, and the obligation is not divided in proportion to the amount of the debt solely on the ground that there is a separate site owner

Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu860 delivered on April 10, 1992

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of each of the plaintiffs' arguments on the following facts: (a) the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the site and building located in the ( Address 1 omitted) of the inherited property of this case is the registration of invalidity in which the secured debt has already been repaid and its effect has already been extinguished or the obligation has not been established from the beginning; and (b) the claim amount of the provisional loan withdrawn from the deceased non-party 1 Co., Ltd. immediately before the death of the deceased non-party 1 was appropriated for all repayment to the bond-raising company; and (c) contrary to the theory of lawsuit, there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. There is no number of days for criticism against the legitimacy of fact-finding

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

The court below held that the defendant's disposal or debt included in the taxable value of 50,000,00 won should be included in the taxable value of 50,000,000 won or less, on the premise that the defendant's disposal or debt included in the inherited property taxation of this case under Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the amount of 80,000,000 won for the repayment of the lease deposit to non-party 2 as to the building ( Address 2 omitted) included in the inherited property taxation of this case and the amount of 50,000,000 won for the return of the lease deposit to the non-party 2 as to the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the property subject to the taxation of the inherited property of this case, should not be included in the taxable value of this case.

However, Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance, the amount shall be calculated by the type of property and the amount is at least 50 million won, if the ancestor bears an obligation, and the purpose of use is objectively unclear, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4." Thus, the debts borne within one year by the ancestor shall be calculated by the total amount thereof, regardless of the cause thereof, and it shall be determined whether the total amount is at least 50 million won. In light of the language and text of the above provision, the lease of each corresponding part of the previous three buildings to the non-party 2 or ASEAN Co., Ltd., the building owner, as the non-party 1 (see subparagraph 13, 14-2, 18-3, 14, and 500,000 won or more, and unless any other special circumstance exists, the lease deposit return obligation shall be deemed to have been borne in full by the above deceased, and the amount of the debt shall not be divided.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision and the interpretation of the contract, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal pointing this out

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.