A. The case that reversed the original judgment on the ground that there was an error of incomplete deliberation on the inheritance tax deduction under the Inheritance Tax Act / The scope of application of Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

(a) The case reversing the original judgment on the ground that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations concerning the inheritance deduction under Article 11-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 8-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and calculated the tax amount of all inherited

B. If the decedent sold the land owned by him/her one year prior to the death of the decedent, even if he/she received the intermediate payment within one year of the death of the decedent, this equivalent of the intermediate payment may not be included in the inherited property stipulated in Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax

Article 11-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 8-2(1)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ulsan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu301 delivered on February 5, 1988

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Article 11-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where inheritance commences due to the death of a person who has a domicile in the Republic of Korea, the value of the house shall be deducted from the taxable value of the inherited property of the decedent at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, if the inheritance includes a house prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 8-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the value of the house shall be the house inherited by the spouse, lineal ascendant, descendant, and sibling of the decedent. In this case, if there are not less than two inherited houses, the house shall be the house with the highest housing value among them. Thus, the house at 117.93 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) and the house at 52.89 square meters in Ulsan City ( Address 2 omitted) within the limit of the limit of Article 11-2 (2) of the same Act, and the judgment below, which calculated the tax amount including all the above houses, shall be deemed to have violated the above Acts and subordinate statutes, thereby making it erroneous.

The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, the amount shall be included in the taxable value of the inherited property under Article 4, if the amount is at least 50 million won by type of the property and prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the facts duly established by the court below, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased on March 15, 1983, sold the land at 483 square meters ( Address 3 omitted), which was owned by the deceased on February 20, 1982, the first year prior to the death of the deceased on February 20, 1982. Thus, this land cannot be included in the inherited property,

The grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the records, the decision of the court below that the non-party 2 purchased the land from the deceased non-party 1 above of the deceased non-party 1 of the deceased, and constructed and sold the commercial buildings and housing of this case on the land of this case after obtaining a construction permit on the land of this case from the deceased non-party 1 of the deceased non-party 1, and that the above non-party 1 of the deceased is not a new construction and sale of the commercial buildings of this case, and there is no lack of merit

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)