logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1991. 1. 29. 선고 90누7449 판결
[상속세등부과처분무효확인][공1991.3.15.(892),895]
Main Issues

The case holding that a disposition imposing inheritance tax is not void as a matter of course solely on the ground that it violates the good faith principle (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

After the commencement of inheritance, the head of a tax office prevents the Plaintiffs from filing a return of inheritance tax, and even if the standard market price of inherited property has risen three years thereafter, it goes against the good faith principle by imposing inheritance tax on the basis of the value at the time of imposition of inheritance tax pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, such a reason alone cannot be deemed as null and void.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff-Appellant

The first instance court et al. and seven others

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Maritime Affairs Office

Judgment of the lower court

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu2110 delivered on July 25, 1990

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Based on its reasoning, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the tax disposition of this case on the ground that there is no evidence supporting that the defendant was prevented from filing a return of inheritance tax after the commencement of the inheritance in this case, and that there was no such fact, and that the standard market price of inherited property has increased after three years have passed since then, even if the imposition of the inheritance tax violates the principle of good faith by imposing the inheritance tax based on the value at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, such reason alone cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course. Thus, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문