A. Whether the tax authority may regard the amount determined by the sales contract for inherited land within six months from the time of commencing the inheritance as the value of inherited property (negative)

B. Whether the obligation to return the lease deposit should be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax in a case where the lease contract for the building owned by the deceased was concluded before the death of the deceased, but the agreed lease deposit was not received by the time of death (negative)

A. The market price at the time of commencement of inheritance, which is the basis for calculating the value of inherited property, refers to the objective exchange value at that time, and in case of land, the objective exchange value may change from time to time to time to time, and the burden of proving the value of inherited property exists with the tax authority. If the transaction value of inherited property is confirmed within 6 months before and after the commencement of inheritance, the transaction value shall be limited to the guidelines for the management of affairs inside the national tax administrative agencies, and it shall not be legally binding upon the court or the general public. Thus, the tax authority shall actively prove that there was no change in the market price if the sale price at the time of commencement of inheritance is considered to be the market price at the time of commencement of inheritance, and it shall not be presumed that there was no change in the market price between the time between the commencement of inheritance and the sale at the time of commencement of inheritance.

B. Even if the contract of lease was concluded with the lessee to receive the lease deposit, unless the lessor received the lease deposit as agreed upon by the lessee, there is no possibility that the lessor may be liable for the repayment of the lease deposit to the lessee, apart from the fact that the lessor has a claim for the delivery of the lease deposit against the lessee. Thus, if, even if the lessor concluded the lease contract to lease the building prior to the death of the decedent, the lessee did not receive some of the lease deposit as agreed in the lease contract until the time of the death of the decedent, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to return the lease deposit has been determined as the obligation to the lessee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it cannot be deducted

(a) Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 26(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

[Judgment of the court below] and five plaintiffs et al.

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu4784 delivered on January 24, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

The court below acknowledged that, among the inherited property of this case, the above land was 678-18 site and 678-19 site from the commencement date of the inheritance of this case ( October 17, 1985), since there was no change in the market price of the above land from the above 678-18 site and 678-19 site from the above 6th day of the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, the defendant calculated the above sale price at the value of inherited property under the premise that it was confirmed that the plaintiff's interest and master person's interest were sold at the request of Seoul and received 345,00,000 won from the sale price of the land within the 6th day of the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, there was no change in the market price of inherited property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case. The court below determined that the sale price at the time of the inheritance of this case was 6th day before and after the commencement date of the inheritance of this case and that there was no change in the market price at that time.

In light of the relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court: (a) concluded a lease contract with the deceased on October 17, 1985; (b) concluded a lease contract with the deceased on the aggregate of KRW 1,000,000 for rent 10,000 for the remaining 00,000,000 won for rent 10,000,000 won for rent 10,000,000 won for rent 10,000,000,000 won for rent 10,000,000 won for rent 10,000,000,000 won for rent 20,000,000,000 won for rent 1,00,000 won for rent 1,00,00,000 won for rent 1,00,000 won for rent 1,000,000 won for the remaining 0,000,00 won for rent 20,05,105.

In concluding a lease contract, a lessor’s deposit paid to the lessor, including rent and damage claim, is granted to secure all claims owed by the lessor to the lessee under the lease contract, until the leased object is returned. Thus, even if the lessor agreed to receive the lease deposit in the lease contract with a third party, barring the lessee’s claim for the delivery of the lease deposit, unless the lessor has received the lease deposit agreed upon from the lessee, it is clear in light of the nature of the lease deposit that there is no room for the lessor to claim the delivery of the lease deposit to the lessee. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of the lease contract’s obligation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, since the above title was concluded with a third party on behalf of the lessee before the predecessor’s death, if the lessor did not receive part of the lease deposit agreed upon from the lessee until the time the predecessor’s death, it cannot be deemed as having been determined that the predecessor had already been liable to return the lease deposit to the lessee at the time of commencement of the inheritance tax. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect that the amount of the lease deposit should be determined before the commencement of inheritance tax.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)