A. The burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary evaluation method under Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act for the inherited property (=the taxation authority)

B. Whether the market price is difficult to be calculated solely on the ground that there was no real transaction from the commencement of inheritance until the time of disposition of inheritance tax imposition (negative)

A. The burden of proving that the assessment of inherited property by the method stipulated in Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is a supplementary assessment method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance or the time of the imposition of the inheritance tax, and there was no choice but to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult

B. The mere fact that there was no transaction from the commencement of inheritance to the time of disposition on inheritance tax does not constitute a case where it is difficult to calculate the market price.

(a)Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5(1)(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act ;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6309 decided Dec. 21, 1990 (Gong1991,656) 90Nu5795 decided Apr. 23, 1991 (Gong1991,1531) 92Nu4840 decided Jul. 24, 1992 (Gong192,2586)

Plaintiff

Head of Changwon Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu698 delivered on December 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The evaluation of inherited property by the method stipulated in Article 5 (2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is a supplementary method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance or the imposition of the inheritance tax, and the burden of proof on the fact that the above supplementary method was not inevitable because it is difficult to compute the market price.

According to the records, the defendant claims that the value of the land of this case was assessed by the rate method as stipulated in Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993 of May 1, 1990) because it is difficult to calculate the market price, and there was no separate proof as to the fact that the above supplementary assessment method had no choice but to be selected because it is difficult to compute the market price. (Although the defendant did not say that the land of this case was actually traded at the time of the commencement of inheritance tax imposition, it cannot be viewed as a case where it is difficult to calculate the market price under the above Acts and subordinate statutes) by the court below's determination that the tax disposition of this case, which assessed the value according to the above supplementary assessment method, is unlawful, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation

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