Whether payment in kind may not be permitted for the sole reason that the property is inappropriate for the management and disposal of unlisted stocks;

In light of Articles 30 and 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, unless the unlisted stocks for which an application for payment in kind was made become the object of a security right, or it is deemed inappropriate to manage and dispose of the stocks solely on the ground that they are unlisted stocks, unless it is deemed inappropriate to manage and dispose of them due to specific reasons, such as there is no dispute over common ownership or reversion of ownership, or there is no prospect for sale, etc., under the statutes or the articles of incorporation, or there is no possibility for sale.

Articles 29 and 34-7 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 30, 31, and 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Attorney Lee Doo-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu4198 delivered on November 15, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the head of a tax office deems it inappropriate to manage and dispose of property which is paid in kind, he/she may refuse permission if there is no other property subject to management and disposition, but Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that stock certificates assessed as inherited property shall be included in the scope of property that can be appropriated for the payment in kind of inheritance tax. Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that non-listed stocks shall be included in the above stock certificates, which are property subject to payment in kind, by prescribing the method of determining the amount of receipt in cases where new stocks are issued by the corporation that issued the relevant stocks before the commencement of the inheritance, and thus, the method of determining the amount of receipt in cases where new stocks are issued by the corporation that issued the relevant stocks after the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, the payment in kind may not be denied solely on the grounds that the non-listed stocks for which an application for payment in kind

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the decision of the court below that the defendant's rejection of the application for payment in kind is unlawful as it lacks rationality and it goes beyond the scope of discretion, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the property subject to payment in kind. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)