(a) The case holding that the value on the balance sheet may be assessed as the value of inherited property on the ground that the building and facilities, equipment, etc. which are not combined with the building are included in the inherited property separately from the building, and the value on the balance sheet is the standard before the commencement of inheritance and the return of income tax

(b) Whether sales price of inherited real estate may be deemed the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance, where the time of selling such inherited real estate is less than one month from the commencement date of inheritance (affirmative)

(a) The case holding that the value of the balance sheet can be assessed as the value of inherited property on the ground that the building and the equipment, etc. which are not combined with the building are included in the inherited property separately from the building, and the value on the balance sheet is the standard immediately before the commencement of inheritance and the return of income tax shows depreciation

B. The sale time of inherited real estate is when ten days have elapsed from the commencement date of the inheritance or when one month has not elapsed from the commencement date of the inheritance, and there is no special circumstance to confirm that there was a price fluctuation between the commencement date of inheritance and the sale time of the inheritance, so such sale price may be deemed as the market price of inherited real estate at the time of the commencement

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5(1), 5(2)3, and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190)

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu260 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1500)

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

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2378 delivered on July 21, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

According to the records, the defendant donated some shares of the building to the plaintiff 1 within three years prior to the commencement of the inheritance to the plaintiff 1, among the building ( Address 1 omitted) building and the building on the land (hereinafter referred to as the "△△ Culture") of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "△△ Culture") and deemed to have donated shares to the plaintiff 2, and imposed each gift tax on the plaintiff 2. The gift tax is assessed by adding the value of the inherited property to the value of the inherited property pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 190) and then the amount equivalent to the gift tax calculated pursuant to the above donation was deducted from the amount equivalent to the inheritance tax calculated

The Second Ground of Appeal

On the registry, the remaining parts of the building and the land of the non-party are registered in the name of the plaintiff 1, and the remaining parts of the building and the land of the non-party are registered in the name of the predecessor. However, with respect to 4/128.83 shares in the land and the building of the non-party 146.03 shares in the name of the decedent, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the above plaintiff for 5,128.83 shares in the name of the building, and for 982.8/3 shares in the name of the above plaintiff for 128.8/128.83 shares in the land and the building of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 for 292.3 square meters, which are part of the building among the building on the registry and the building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○○") since the registration had a estimated capacity, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above shares of the plaintiff among the above plaintiff's shares given to the above plaintiff.

The theory evidence is merely that the above plaintiff had income from the store rental deposit, and there was considerable assets in possession of real estate, and therefore it is insufficient to recognize that the above plaintiff had borne 1/2 of the acquisition fund at the time of acquisition by ○○○n or △△ Arts hall. In addition, in light of the fact that there is no special need to register the above plaintiff's shares with respect to ○○○n or △△ Arts hall differently from the actual ownership shares, there is a special need to register the above plaintiff's shares with respect to the above decedent and the above plaintiff's shares, the judgment of the court below that the above plaintiff's shares in the above plaintiff's shares in the △△△ Arts hall, which was made in excess of the above plaintiff's shares in the above plaintiff's share as to ○○○○

As to the third ground for appeal

According to the evidence presented by the court below, it is acknowledged that the decedent has evaluated the telephone subscription right, vehicle transport equipment, and equipment of △△ funeral on the balance sheet, etc. submitted at the time of income tax return as of December 31, 1987 separately from the building, and since it does not seem to have any material to view that the above facility equipment, etc. cannot be separated without any damage caused by the attachment of the building, or that the above facility, etc. is a whole building requiring excessive cost for the separation, it shall be included in the inherited property separate from the head of △△△ Food. Since the value on the balance sheet for the above facility equipment, etc. is based on December 31, 1987, the commencement of the inheritance immediately before the commencement of the inheritance and the report is made by the decedent to the head of the tax office on his own at the time of return of income tax return, it is reasonable to view that there is any special circumstance otherwise, and therefore, the defendant'

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the judgment of the court below that deemed the value of the above balance sheet as the evaluation amount of the above facilities, equipment, etc. at the time of commencing the inheritance is justifiable as a result, and it is not different even if there is no separate evaluation of the facilities, equipment, etc. in the process of exchanging the 000

As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below held that on May 6, 1987, the decedent sold the Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address 3 omitted) Park 380,674,380 won, which was within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, and the decedent was employed as the auditor of the non-party company until March 22, 1986, and was paid retirement consolation money at the time of retirement. In addition, the decedent had been operating ○○n or △△△ Culture and Arts Center and received considerable income, and there was a fact that there was a disposal of other real estate because there was a considerable financial assets, and there was a fact that there was interest income on the above, and there was a disposal of other real estate. Therefore, it is not recognized that the decedent paid the remaining 238,495,778 won, excluding the money that the defendant recognized the payment from the disposal price of the above real estate, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the above disposal price is not objectively clear in terms of the value of the above real estate, and thus, it cannot be justified in light of facts-finding or records.

As to the fifth ground for appeal

The court below held that the above plaintiff's transfer of shares to the plaintiff 2 who is a lineal descendant before the death of the decedent was a donation to the above plaintiff in light of the financial ability of the decedent and the age of the above plaintiff, etc., and that the defendant transferred shares to the non-party who was employed by the decedent for ten years and worked as a female administrator, and that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs paid the non-party the price to the non-party and purchased the shares again from the non-party to the plaintiff who is the heir after the death of the decedent, the court below held that the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are reasonable in light of the records, and there is no error of law of incomplete deliberation or rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason for the argument.

Ground of appeal No. 6

The fact-finding by the court below, which was sold on April 3, 198 and April 21 of the same year, at the time of the original adjudication, which is an inherited property, is proper, and the time of sale is when ten days or more have not elapsed since the date of commencing the inheritance, or when one month has not passed since there are special circumstances to confirm that there was a price fluctuation between the time of commencing the inheritance and the time of each sale as above, so the sale price can be deemed as the market price of the above real estate at the time of commencing the inheritance (Supreme Court Decision 84Nu260 delivered on July 24, 1984), and there is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)