Methods of assessing the value of inherited real estate where two or more collateral mortgages exist concurrently;

In evaluating the value of inherited property pursuant to Article 9(4)1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 5-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990), if at least two collateral mortgages exist concurrently on inherited property, the sum of the maximum debt amount shall be assessed as the value of the inherited property.

Article 9(4)1 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)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6114 delivered on October 17, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

(1) The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the assessment method calculated by the defendant as the value of the inherited property of this case at the complaint as of March 7, 1989, which was stated at the first day of pleading of the court below, is unlawful. Thus, according to the records, the plaintiffs' above assertion is to be assessed as the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act in accordance with Article 5 (2) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act with respect to three parcels of the inherited property of this case, such as address 1 omitted, ( Address 2 omitted), address 2 omitted, ( Address 3 omitted), and land, among the inherited property of this case. However, even though the defendant assessed as the maximum market price of the right to collateral security established on the above three parcels of land, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below was unlawful, since it should be examined and determined as to the above argument, and thus, the judgment of the court below and the lack of reasoning as to the above argument is erroneous.

However, comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Articles 9(1) and 9(4)1 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); and subparagraph 3 of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 199) of the same Act, the value of inherited property shall, in principle, be assessed based on the current status as at the time of commencement of inheritance (Article 9(1) of the same Act): Provided, That in a property where a right to collateral security has been established, the higher amount between the maximum amount of the claim secured by the property and the value prescribed in Article 9(1)1 of the same Act shall be assessed as the value of the property (Article 9(4)1 of the same Act and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above maximum debt amount shall be assessed as 00 won if there are two or more inherited property, and the above maximum debt amount shall be no more than the maximum debt amount set at 1000.1 million won.

(2) The selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they are contrary to logical and empirical rules, and the records and comparison of relevant evidence are examined by the court below with the records, and it cannot be viewed that there was no reason like the theory of lawsuit, the violation of the rules of evidence, or the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete deliberation in the process of finding facts, since the court below rejected the claim that the plaintiffs' obligation to be deducted from the value of the inherited property of this case is not inherited or certain obligation.

(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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)