A. Whether the proceeds from the disposal of the house disposed of before the commencement of inheritance constitutes the value of the house subject to the deduction for inheritance (negative)

B. Whether the amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) can be deemed as “property acquired by inheritance” pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

C. The burden of proof and empirical rule that the disposal price of the inherited property under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act is actually inherited and included in the above "property acquired by inheritance"

(d) The case holding that in case where the decedent disposes of most of the real estate owned by him during the period from 20 months to 5 days before the death of the decedent, the disposal price for the disposal of the real estate shall be determined by the empirical rule to view that the heir was inherited in cash or credit, unless the consumption situation is clearly identified

A. A house subject to a deduction for inheritance of a house shall refer to the house actually inherited by the spouse, lineal ascendants and descendants, and siblings of the inheritee. Therefore, where the house has been disposed of before the commencement of inheritance, even though the disposal proceeds are included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, it cannot be the house subject to a deduction for inheritance of a house, since such disposal proceeds cannot be the inherited house

B. The provisions of Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) shall not be deemed to be “property acquired by inheritance” under the provisions of Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, unless it is proved that an amount included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax is inherited in cash, but is included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax, unless it is proved that the amount is inherited in cash.

C. The taxation requirement requirement that the disposal proceeds under the above "B" are included in the above "property acquired by inheritance" as a matter of principle by the tax authority, but if it is found that the facts presumed to have been subject to taxation in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the taxation imposition disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the other party proves the circumstances not subject to the application of the empirical rule.

(d) The case holding that the disposal price for disposal of real estate owned over several occasions during the period from five years before the death of the decedent to the time of his death, and from three months to five days before the death, most of the real estate owned was disposed of several times during the period from three months to five days before the death, and since the relation to the receipt of the sale price and the relation of the heir with respect to the consumption place can be easily verified by the heir, the disposal price for disposal shall be deemed to have been inherited to the heir in cash or credit, unless the consumption area is clearly identified.

A. Articles 11-2(1) and 11-2(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198); Article 8-2(1)/b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. (d) Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 11(1)/C. 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu510 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1507) (Gong1990, 282) 89Nu1490 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 282) / 89Nu5577 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 417). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu183 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1505) (Gong190, 277) 89Nu606 delivered on April 27, 190 (Gong190, 1983)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu12429 delivered on May 15, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 11-2(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198) and Article 8-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a house subject to a housing inheritance deduction refers to a house actually inherited by the spouse, lineal ascendants, descendants, and siblings of an ancestor. Therefore, where the house was disposed of before the inheritance begins, it shall be interpreted that even if the disposal price is included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax, it cannot be the inherited house, and thus, it cannot be the value of the house subject to a housing inheritance deduction because it cannot be the inherited house. The judgment below is just and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to a housing inheritance deduction, such as the theory of lawsuit, which is groundless.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The provisions of Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) provides that in cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance, the disposal price or loan is highly likely to be donated or inherited to an heir in cash, and thus, among them, the amount of money, the purpose of use of which is objectively unclear is not objectively clear, shall be deemed to have been inherited in cash and shall be prevented from an act of unreasonably reducing inheritance taxes by including it in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu510, Sept. 12, 1989).

In addition, since the tax authority has the burden of proving the existence of the taxation requirement fact, the tax authority should, in principle, prove the fact that the above disposal proceeds are included in the above "property acquired by inheritance" as a matter of principle, but if it is proved that the other party is not subject to the application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the tax imposition disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the other party proves the circumstances not subject to the application of the empirical rule. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9145 delivered on December 12, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6006 delivered on April 27, 1990). According to the facts established by the court below, the inheritee could not be seen as being 5 years prior to the death of the inheritee due to a serious disease such as high blood pressure, urology, and heart disease, etc., which occurred from five to five months before the death of the inheritee, and the plaintiffs can be seen as being able to easily purchase the real estate through cash consumption relationship between the heir and the receipts of this case.

It is difficult for the court below to criticize that all the money, excluding the money that the consumer of the real estate of this case clearly recognized, was inherited in cash, and that it did not properly examine the relation of giving and receiving the sale price. However, the court below's conclusion that the remaining money for the disposal of this case constitutes "total amount of assets acquired by inheritance" under Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the burden of proof, such as theory of lawsuit.

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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)