A. The meaning of "value based on the current status at the time of commencing the inheritance" under Article 9 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)

B. Whether Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) which determines the method of evaluating inherited property violates the provisions of the mother law

A. According to Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), the value of inherited property is based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Here, the value based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance refers to, in principle, the exchange value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, but when it is difficult to calculate the market price, the concept includes the value appraised in

B. Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 9(1) of this Act provides that the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance shall be based on the market price at that time and, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the market price shall be calculated according to the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5). Article 5(2)1 Item (a) of the same Act provides that a specific area of land among tangible property determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall be based on the value appraised by the rate with respect to the assessment of land buildings among tangible property. As such, it is a supplementary assessment method in preparation for cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencement

A. (b) Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Dongmasan Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu188 delivered on April 3, 1984

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) which was enforced at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the value of inherited property is based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Here, the value based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance refers to, in principle, the exchange value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, but if it is difficult to calculate the market value, it is called as a concept including the value

Therefore, Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) provides that the value at the time of commencement of inheritance under Article 9 (1) of the same Act shall be based on the market price at that time and when it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value at that time shall be based on the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5). Paragraph (2) 1 (a) of the same Article provides that in the appraisal of land and buildings among tangible property, it shall be based on the value appraised by the rate in case of a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in the assessment of land and buildings among tangible property, it shall be a supplementary assessment method in preparation for cases where it is difficult to calculate the market

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is not reasonable to discuss the premise that the above Enforcement Decree provision is invalid.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

(1) First point

The purport of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is as follows: (a) in principle, the value of inherited property according to the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the above Inheritance Tax Act shall be assessed based on the market price at that time, but only when it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of inherited property may be assessed according to the methods stipulated in paragraphs (2) through (5). Thus, even if it is possible to calculate the value of inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance by the market price, if an inheritance tax is assessed based on the inherited property value according to the methods stipulated in

In this case, the defendant evaluated the inherited property of this case at the price assessed by the rate method stipulated in Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and there is no evidence to prove that it was difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and according to the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 3, etc. employed by the court below, there is a circumstance that it was difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's measure, which assessed the value of the inherited property of this case by the rate method stipulated in Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the above Enforcement Decree, was unlawful

(2) 2

In light of the records, the court below cannot find that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or an incomplete hearing, in the measures that recognized the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of the real estate of this case, and in the event that the inherited property can be assessed according to the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the burden of proving the market price is against the defendant who is the tax authority, and therefore, the defendant who

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)