The case holding that if the debt of the inheritee is limited to the sole debt in relation to the obligee, the lessor shall deduct the entire debt from the value of the inherited property even if the loan was appropriated for the new construction fund of the inheritee and the inheritor's co-owned building or the joint management business fund of the inheritee and the inheritor.

In Article 4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the obligation that is stipulated to be deducted from the value of inherited property refers to the obligation that the decedent would have to pay ultimately at the time of commencing the inheritance. If the obligation of the decedent is not a joint and several obligation with the heir, but is limited to the obligation of the decedent's sole obligation with the relationship with the obligee, it is clear that the loans are appropriated from the above two persons for new construction of public buildings or the fund for joint management business, even if it is appropriated for the above two persons' new construction of public buildings or the fund for joint management.

Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Han Sang-sap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3955 delivered on November 21, 1990

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

The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiffs’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's obligation of loans of KRW 402,272,00 in total to the non-party Dong Young-si Mutual Savings and Finance Company, the non-party Dong Young-si 3 Dong Young-si, the same Kim Young-dong, the same Kim Young-dong, the same Kim Young-dong, the same Kim Young-dong, and the same So-young Accounting Board, which was borne by the decedent at the time of the death of the deceased, is not jointly borne by the plaintiff, but jointly borne by the defendant, so the total amount of the above obligation should be deducted from the inherited property value. The defendant's assertion that the deceased and the plaintiff Han Han-dong shall jointly run the business in one company, and newly constructed the building on their own land and registered it as joint ownership. The court below borrowed money in the name of the couple, or each of the above loans was borrowed in order to cover the new construction fund of the above building and the new construction fund of one company, and each of the above loans is jointly borne by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's.

However, Article 4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that a debt shall be deducted from the value of inherited property from the value of inherited property refers to a debt, the ancestor's ultimate burden of which is deemed certain at the time of commencement of the inheritance (Article 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983). According to the records, if the debt of the deceased's loans is satisfied prior to the death of the deceased and it is recognized that the deceased's joint liability was paid for the above debt before the death of the deceased, and the debtor was established for the above new building, it is recognized that the above debt of the deceased's joint liability was established for the above couple's joint liability, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the debtor's name is the deceased's above deceased's and that the plaintiff's joint liability was paid for the above debt of the deceased's above deceased's joint liability with the above deceased's joint liability with the above deceased's first, second, five, and six, the remaining debt of the deceased's joint liability is not known to the plaintiff's joint liability or joint liability with the deceased's joint liability.

In conclusion, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' letter of deduction on the remaining debts except for the debts to Kim Jong-chul, is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of debts to be deducted under Article 4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and the determination of evidence.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The issue is that the judgment below against the rules of evidence was erroneous by rejecting evidence against the logical rules or the empirical rules even in respect of the obligation to return the lease deposit, etc. to the non-party good order, but the court below's examination of the evidence cooking process conducted by the court below in determining the obligation to return the lease deposit, etc. based on the records is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

The court below recognized the fact that the lease deposit was reported as KRW 5,00,000 and KRW 3,000,000,000, respectively, when the above deceased and the plaintiff Han-spon leased the same and the same side in the building newly constructed by them to the non-party Lee Jae-spon and Kim Jae-spon, based on his macroficial evidence, and rejected the evidence consistent with the defendant's argument, the court below held that the above judgment of the court below is reasonable to deem the lease deposit obligation of the above husband and the above husband of the deceased as the reported amount. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit.

4. Therefore, by accepting the first issue of the appeal by the plaintiffs, the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment below against them is reversed, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissal 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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)