[1] Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act allows a request for correction due to a final and conclusive judgment on a lawsuit claiming inheritance recovery, and Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act allows a request for correction as to a lawsuit deemed reasonable, and even though the specific subject and scope were delegated to the Presidential Decree, whether the delegation scope of the parent law, which did not permit the reason for additional request for correction, exceeds the scope

[2] Whether a lawsuit claiming the cancellation, etc. of registration of real estate, which is inherited property, is “litigation seeking recovery of inheritance” under Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 81(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, by asserting that a person is a true inheritor (affirmative)

[1] Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002) allows a request for correction separate from the application system for correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes in cases where there is a change in the value of inherited property between heirs as of the date of commencing the inheritance due to a final and conclusive judgment of a lawsuit seeking recovery of inherited property. Furthermore, in order to allow a request for correction, other than a lawsuit claiming recovery of inheritance, the specific subject or scope is delegated to the Presidential Decree, which is subordinate statutes. In determining the subject or scope of permission for a request for correction by the Presidential Decree, the specific subject or scope shall be determined by considering the significance of the special system for the above request for correction, legislative purpose, relationship with other claims recognized under the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. In addition, Article 45-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not require a new request for correction within the scope delegated by the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, it does not exceed the delegation scope of the above Act.

[2] Article 79 subparagraph 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002) and Article 81 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002) mean a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act. The lawsuit for recovery of inheritance refers to a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act. The lawsuit for recovery of inheritance refers to a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance. However, on the premise that the right of inheritance is infringed upon by the title heir, the person who has the real right to claim the recovery is the true heir, and even if the person who has the title of heir or himself claims the cancellation of registration on the inherited property, the claim shall be interpreted as a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, regardless of the cause of the claim.

[1] Article 79 subparagraph 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002), Article 81 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002), Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 79 subparagraph 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002), Article 81 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 202), Article 99 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 635) Supreme Court Decision 94Da798 delivered on April 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 145)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu15705 delivered on July 20, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on invalidity of the Enforcement Decree

Article 79 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides, “Where a person who has reported the tax base of inheritance and the amount of inheritance tax under Article 67, or who has received the determination or correction of the tax base and the amount of inheritance tax under Article 76, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may request such determination or correction, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, within six months from the date on which such cause occurs.” Article 81(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides, “Where there is a change in the value of inheritance between heirs as of the date on which inheritance commences due to such cause as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as a lawsuit for inheritance recovery, etc.”, and Article 81(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides for “a claim for inheritance recovery and a final judgment” in accordance with respect.

Article 79 Subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act allows a request for correction separately from the filing of a request for correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes in cases where there is a change in the value of inherited property between heirs as of the date of commencing the inheritance due to a final and conclusive judgment on the lawsuit claiming the recovery of inherited property, and further, the specific subject or scope of the request for correction is delegated to the Presidential Decree, which is subordinate statutes, so that the request for correction can be allowed. In determining the subject or scope of permission for the request for correction as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the specific subject or scope shall be determined in consideration of the significance of the special system for the request for correction, legislative purpose of the special system for the request for correction, relationship with other request for correction recognized under the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc.

In addition, Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “Where a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, or who has received a determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes, becomes final and conclusive as different by a final and conclusive judgment (including reconciliation and other acts having the same effect as the judgment) in the first return, determination or correction, he/she may request a determination or correction within 2 months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause thereof,” thereby allowing a remedy for infringement upon a request for correction based on a final and conclusive judgment other than the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, as well as upon a change in the value of inherited property pursuant to a final and conclusive judgment other than the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, the application of special provisions of Article 79(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Act to a final and conclusive judgment other

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal that Article 81(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Act exceeds the scope of delegation under Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance and Gift Act, which is the mother corporation, or that it is null and void in violation of the principle of equality

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the lawsuit seeking inheritance recovery

According to Article 79 subparag. 1 of the former Inheritance Act and Article 81(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, where a person who reported the inheritance tax base and tax amount under the former Inheritance Tax Act, or a person who was determined or corrected the inheritance tax base and tax amount, has a change in the value of inherited property as of the commencement date of inheritance due to a final and conclusive judgment on a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance due to a dispute between an heir or his/her heir and a third party, he/she may make a request for determination or correction as prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 6 months from the date on which the cause occurs. The lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under the above provision refers to a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act when the right of inheritance is infringed by the title heir, but on the premise that the true heir is a true heir with respect to inheritance, he/she claims ownership or ownership rights, etc. due to inheritance and claims for recovery of inheritance under the premise that the right of inheritance is attributed to 197 Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Da1949794.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the facts established based on the records in light of the above legal principles, the purport of Non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter "non-party 1 et al.") to implement a specific distribution agreement on the rent income of the land in Songpa-gu (number omitted) is that the lawsuit filed against the plaintiffs on October 26, 1998 is not based on inheritance, but on the ground of the second agreement on December 22, 1997, which is merely a claim-based agreement, and that the first agreement on the division of inherited property under the first agreement between the deceased non-party 5 et al. on May 30, 198 and the heir of the deceased non-party 5 on May 30, 197, under the premise that the agreement on the division of inherited property under the first agreement on the division was already effective, it does not constitute a violation of Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Recovery Claim Act and it does not constitute a violation of Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the above Act.

3. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, with respect to the lawsuit brought by Nonparty 6, namely, the lawsuit brought by Nonparty 6 against all the deceased Nonparty 5’s inheritors, including the plaintiffs (the plaintiffs are the deceased Nonparty 7’s inheritors, who are the deceased Nonparty 5’s inheritors), for which the first agreement is null and void, the plaintiffs consistently asserted that the first agreement is null and void from the first instance court to the appellate court, and asserted against Nonparty 6’s claim, but the court of first instance and the appellate court ruled that the first agreement is null and void, and that the first agreement is null and void, and then they accepted Nonparty 6’s claim. In light of these decision and the progress of the trial, the deceased Nonparty 7’s share of inheritance against the plaintiffs who asserted that the deceased Nonparty 7’s share of inheritance is a legal share of inheritance, shall be deemed final and conclusive as 1/9. The judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal No. 4, etc.

In addition, as long as the court below determined that the lawsuit by Nonparty 1, etc. does not fall under the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance and accepted the judgment of the first instance court, the court below did not err in omitting judgment as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 5.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)