A. The purport of Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990); and whether the above provisions apply regardless of whether the debtor and the real estate owner are the same person (affirmative)

B. Where the decedent is liable as a surety for a third party at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the standard of determining whether such obligation constitutes a debt to be deducted from the value of the inherited property

C. Whether an appeal may be lodged in addition to the procedure of correcting the judgment, as to the error of calculating the amount of tax due to a mistake in calculation (negative)

A. Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990) provide that in the appraisal of the value of inherited property, if a right to collateral is created with respect to real estate, the amount of the secured claim shall be determined within the scope of the actual value of the real estate, and therefore, if the maximum amount of the secured claim is greater than the amount calculated by other methods, the amount of the secured claim shall be determined within the scope of the actual value of the real estate, it shall be generally considered that the actual value of the secured claim is reasonable to view it as the actual value of the transaction.

B. Where an ancestor is liable as a surety for a third party at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the issue of whether the debt is the debt to be deducted from the value of the inherited property shall not be determined by whether the debt in question is a final and conclusive obligation to be performed by the ancestor as of the time of commencement of the inheritance, and shall not be determined by the method of evaluating the value of the inherited property offered as a security, and in detail, since the principal obligor is in a insolvent situation where it is impossible for the principal obligor to repay, the amount of the debt must not be performed by the decedent, and even if the principal obligor exercises his right to indemnity against the principal obligor, the amount of the debt shall be deducted from the value of the inherited property.

C. It is obvious that the calculation of the amount of tax by the lower judgment is erroneous due to an error in the calculation, and in such a case, it can be relieved through the procedure for correction of the judgment, and thus, it does not constitute an appeal.

A. Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 5-2 subparag. 3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7481 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1006) (Gong1984, 2096). Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 2096) decided April 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 823) 88Nu4294 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1175).

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11969 delivered on October 10, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 9(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990) provide that when a collateral is created with respect to real property, the amount of the secured debt shall be determined within the scope of the real value of the real property, the amount of the secured debt shall be determined within the scope of the real value of the real property. Thus, if the maximum amount of secured debt exceeds the amount calculated by other methods, it shall be deemed that the real value of the secured debt is the actual value of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7481, Mar. 27, 1990). The above provision is applied regardless of whether the debtor and the real property owner are the same person.

In addition, in cases where an ancestor is liable for the debt to be deducted from the value of the inherited property by the ancestor for a third party at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the issue of whether the debt constitutes the debt to be deducted from the value of the inherited property shall be determined by whether the debt is ultimately to be performed by the ancestor as of the time of commencement of the inheritance, and shall not be determined by the method of evaluating the value of the inherited property provided as security, and in detail, since the principal debtor is in an insolvent condition where the debtor is unable to repay, the amount of the debt must not be performed by the predecessor, and even if the principal debtor exercises his right to indemnity against the principal debtor, the amount of the debt shall not be deducted from the value of the inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4294 delivered on June 27, 1989; 88Nu410 delivered on December 13, 1983).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no violation of law as the theory of lawsuit.

2. As alleged by the plaintiffs' attorney, the calculation of the tax amount of the judgment below is erroneous, but if the contents of the original adjudication are compared with the related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is clear that it is a misunderstanding due to an error in the calculation, and in this case, it can be relieved through the procedure for correction of the judgment, and it is not a kind of dispute as a result of appeal. Therefore, the argument is ultimately

3. 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)