Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981); the purport of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667, Dec. 31, 1981);

The purpose of the main sentence of Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) is that the value of inherited property shall, in principle, be calculated based on the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, but the value may be assessed by the method provided for in Article 5(2) through (5) of the above Enforcement Decree only when it is difficult to calculate the market

Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu322 delivered on November 27, 1984, 84Nu670 Delivered on March 12, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Nu101 delivered on November 6, 1984 (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu588 delivered on December 27, 1983)

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the following facts are insufficient to acknowledge the title trust of each of the following items: (a) of the inherited property of this case, each of the ( Address 1, 2 omitted) land of the non-party 1, ( Address 3, 4, 5 omitted) and each of the ( Address 6 omitted) land and the building on the ground of the above records are held in title by the non-party 2 to the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 6, and the above real estate should be excluded from inherited property; and (b) the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 is not trusted in light of the records of each of the above documentary evidence and the result of the record verification by the court below, and it is recognized that each of the above real estate was owned by the deceased non-party 3.

According to the records, the court below's aforementioned evidence cooking and fact-finding are deemed legitimate, and there is no violation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules such as theory of lawsuit, and evidence No. 8-1 of evidence No. 8, which is required to bring lawsuit, is a document prepared and executed by the deceased non-party 3 to the above non-party 2, and its content is that the above (name 3, 4, 5 omitted) land and the above (name 6 omitted)-ground building are the non-party 3 on the register, but the fact is that the above document is confirmed as owned by the non-party 2, and it is to carry out the registration of ownership transfer even at the time of you (non-party 2) upon the request of the deceased non-party 3, so it can not be a disposal document concerning the fact that the deceased non-party 3 bears the duty of registration of ownership transfer against the non-party 2, but it cannot be accepted as evidence of the court below's finding of facts against the plaintiff's right to dispose of the above real estate.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney (the supplementary grounds of appeal submitted after the expiration of the submission period are examined to the extent of supplement in case of grounds of appeal).

According to the main sentence of Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) which was enforced at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Under Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667, Dec. 31, 1981), the value of inherited property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case shall be determined by the method provided for in paragraphs (2) through (5) if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case. The purport of each of the above provisions is that the value of inherited property shall be calculated based on the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, but it shall be evaluated by the supplementary method provided for in paragraphs (2) through (5) of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree only when it is difficult to calculate the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu127, Nov. 27, 1984.

In this case, the defendant assessed the value of the ( Address 7 omitted) land and ( Address 8, 9, 10, 3, 4, 5 omitted) land among the inherited property of this case by the multiple method under Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the land ( Address 7 omitted), the court below held that the above ( Address 11 omitted) land is included in the inherited property of this case and the above ( Address 11 omitted) land was included in the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and that the above ( Address 8, 9, 10, 3, 4, 5 omitted) land was assessed as the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and that the above appraisal price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance exceeds the market price at the time of the above appraisal by the appraiser and the non-party 5, and thus, the above appraisal price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance should be considered as the market price at the time of each of the above appraisal.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence in the process, and there was no difficulty in market price assessment of each land based on the fact-finding. The judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation of inherited property. Thus, all of the

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju