(a) An inheritance tax amount payable by one of the co-inheritors;

(b) Methods of giving a payment notice only to one of co-inheritors;

(a) In the case of joint inheritance, the heir is liable to pay only the inheritance tax according to the share of inheritance prescribed in the Civil Act, unless there are special circumstances, such as the ratio of possession of the property either received or to be received by the heir, based on the total

B. The proviso of Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act does not stipulate a special provision on the method of serving a tax notice in the case of joint inheritance for the convenience of tax administration. Thus, even in cases where a tax base and tax amount are determined and notified only for one of co-inheritors, the relevant tax notice is unlawful to specify not only the name of the co-inheritors who are the taxpayer but also the tax amount assessed according to each of their shares of inheritance, and to state or attach the basis for calculation or calculation thereof, but also to state or attach such tax disposition omitted.

Article 25-2 (proviso) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 19 (1) and 19 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu534 Decided July 10, 1984 83Nu534 Decided July 10, 1984

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Attorneys Cho Dong-jin, Attorneys Seo-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

hill of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu160 decided June 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The proviso of Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the tax base and tax amount of joint inheritance shall be effective for other co-inheritors by notifying one person who is the representative of co-inheritors among the co-inheritors in order to promote the convenience of taxation administration. Thus, the special provisions on the method of serving a tax payment notice cannot be the basis for allowing co-inheritors to individually specify the total tax amount and the basis for calculating the basis for calculating the tax amount. In the case of joint inheritance, the entire value of the predecessor's estate shall be the basis for calculating the inheritance tax (it shall be based on the percentage of inheritance tax in the Civil Code, unless there are other special circumstances) of the heir's share of inheritance tax paid or to be received by the heir. Thus, in the case of this case, each co-inheritors's share of inheritance tax shall not be known, and therefore, the grounds for calculating the total tax amount shall not be included in the tax amount to be attached to each tax notice, as well as the name or the basis for calculating the aggregate tax amount of taxation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case against the plaintiffs based on the evidences of this case was unlawful since it stated only the plaintiffs' names, total tax amounts, and the calculation basis of the tax amount to be borne by the co-inheritors and stated only the plaintiffs' names, six co-inheritors's total tax amounts, and the calculation basis thereof, and that the tax disposition of this case is unlawful. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and legal judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles. (In addition, there is no such misunderstanding in the record that the tax notice of this case was delivered along with the statement of calculation equivalent to the evidence No. 1, nor there is no such misunderstanding in the record).

With respect to the second ground:

Even in relation to Plaintiff 1, the record of this case is followed, since it is evident that the written statement or calculation statement of the grounds for calculation of the inheritance tax amount against Plaintiff 1 was not attached to the tax notice (Evidence A9) delivered to that Plaintiff, the Defendant's taxation disposition of this case against Plaintiff 1 is unlawful as it is against Plaintiff 1. Thus, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is justified, and the precedents pointing out arguments are not consistent with the case of this case. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)