If there is a justifiable reason for filing a return without filing an inheritance tax, no penalty tax shall be imposed;

If it is deemed that the penalty tax has the nature of a kind of administrative punishment or administrative sanction for neglect of duty, the penalty tax may not be imposed if there is a justifiable reason for failure to report the inheritance tax.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Each part of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant on January 6, 1992 exceeds KRW 15,940,190 for each of the 50,003,924 for inheritance tax and the part exceeding KRW 3,18,040 for each of the 8,288,490 for the defense tax, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

In full view of each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3-1 to 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1 to 4, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 9-1 to 6, evidence No. 11-2, evidence No. 1-1, 2, No. 2, 3, evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 4-2, each of the following facts may be acknowledged:

(가). 원고 윤ㅇㅇ의 남편이고 나머지 원고들의 아버지인 소외 망 차ㅇㅇ는 1988. 2. 20. 그가 소유하고 있던 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 1060의 332 대 26㎡와 같은동 1060의 92 대 145㎡ 및 그 지상의 2층 여관건물 연건평 197.28㎡를 원고들에게 증여하여 같은 해 3. 2. 원고들 앞으로 각 4분의 1지분씩 소유권이전등기를 경료하였고 이에 따라 원고들은 같은 해 4. 1. 피고에게 증여세 각 금 1,364,960원씩과 방위세 각 금 272,990원씩을 납부하였다.

(나). 그 후인 1990. 12. 23. 위 망인이 사망하자 원고 차ㅇㅇ를 비롯한 상속인들이 상속세 신고를 위하여 1991. 6. 17.경 피고에게 찾아가 그 소속 공무원인 소외 오ㅇㅇ에게 상속세신고 절차 및 납부액 등에 관하여 문의를 하였던 바, 위 오ㅇㅇ는 피고가 보관하고 있던 자료인 위 망인에 관한 상속개시자료전 겸 전산수록 자산, 소득 명세표(갑제4호증)를 색출해 보더니 원고등에 대하여는 상속재산이 없어 1991. 6. 13.자로 과세미달처리하였으니 상속세신고를 할 필요가 없다는 말을 하며 자신과 결재권자인 소외 이ㅇㅇ 과장이 날인한 위 명세표를 교부해 주어 원고 차ㅇㅇ 등은 이에 따라 상속세신고를 하지 아니하였다.

(C) However, on January 6, 1992, the defendant made a donation to the plaintiffs within three years retroactively from the date of his death. As such, the heir such as the plaintiff, etc. included the value of the above donated property in the value of the inherited property subject to inheritance tax pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990), but did not report the inheritance tax by omitting the value of the above donated property, the plaintiff et al. did not report the inheritance tax. Thus, the plaintiff et al. should additionally pay the amount of inheritance tax calculated on the basis of the value of the above donated property at the time of commencement of inheritance and the value of the assessed property at the time of imposition, which is the larger amount between the appraised value of the above real property at the time of commencement of inheritance and the appraised value at the time of imposition, based on the individual officially assessed land price of January 1, 199 and the value calculated on the basis of 90 won and 2084 won, each of the attached value.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

First, as seen in the circumstances of the above disposition, the plaintiffs did not report the inheritance tax to believe that the tax officials belonging to the defendant did not reach the inheritance tax and did not report the inheritance tax. Thus, the application of Article 9 (2) of the above Act on the ground of non-report of inheritance tax, and the imposition of tax on the basis of the value at the time of imposition of inheritance tax not at the time of commencement of inheritance violates the principle of good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and since the above provision becomes null and void by the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality,

둘째, 위 망인이 1987. 1. 1. 소외 이ㅇㅇ에게 위 여관건물 중 1층부분을 임대보증금 20,000,000원에 임대하여 현재까지 위 임대차가 지속 중이므로 위 상속세법 제4조 제1항 제3호 에 의하여 이 보증금반환채무 금 20,000,000원과, 위 법 제11조 제1항에 의한 배우자(원고 윤ㅇㅇ)공제 40,000,000원, 나머지 원고들 및 소외 차ㅇㅇ, 차ㅇㅇ, 차ㅇㅇ에 대한 자녀공제 60,000,000원, 장애자인 위 차ㅇㅇ에 대한 장애자공제 10.000,000원 등 인적공제액 합계 110,000,000원을 정당한 상속가액에서 각 공제하여야 하고, 가사 원고들에게 미신고의 책임이 있다 하더라도 부과당시가액과 상속개시당시가액의 차액에 일정한 비율을 곱하여 산출하는 상속세법 제9조 제3항 에 의한 공제 68,618,270원도 공제하여야 하며, 또 위 망인의 상속인으로는 원고들 외에 다른 자녀들인 위 소외인들이 있으므로 상속인들 전원에게 상속비율에 따른 안분과세를 하여야 함에도, 이에 이르지 아니하고 위 각 금액의 공제 및 안분과세를 하지 아니한 것은 위법하며,

Third, inasmuch as there are no errors by the plaintiffs in failing to report inheritance tax, the imposition of additional tax on negligent tax returns is also illegal.

B. Provisions of the statute

1. Article 4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4283 of the Act): The value of the inherited property which is to be levied on the heir within three years before the commencement of the inheritance; 1. Public charges shall be levied on the amount calculated by adding the value of the property which the decedent donated to his heir; 2. Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act (the value of the inherited property shall be two million won if funeral expenses are less than two million won); 3. The provisions of Article 5 shall be applicable to the taxable value of the inherited property; 10 million won shall be applicable to the inheritance tax; 2. The amount calculated by deducting the value of the property which is to be levied on the value of the inherited property from the value of the property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance; 3. The value of the property which is to be levied on the value of the property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) 1 to 4.

On the other hand, Article 2 (1) 4 of the Defense Tax Act provides that a person liable to pay inheritance tax under the Inheritance Tax Act shall be liable to pay the defense tax, and the tax rate shall be 20/100 in the attached Table 4 of Article 4 of the same Act.

C. Determination on the assertion

First, as to the plaintiffs' first argument that the method of evaluating the value of inherited property is illegal, the main text of Article 9 (2) of the above Inheritance Tax Act is a provision enacted as a sanction against a person who has not filed a report or a person who has filed a report, taking into account the policy needs to induce a person who filed a report in a faithful manner. The subject matter of such a sanction is that there is a cause attributable to a person who failed to file a report within six months from the date of death of the above deceased, such as a taxpayer's failure to file a bona fide return intentionally or by gross negligence, etc., the plaintiffs should report the inheritance tax to the defendant within six months from the date of the death of the above deceased, but the tax officials belonging to the defendant did not need to report it as a lack of taxation, and the above donation amount is not reported in good faith. On the other hand, since the plaintiffs' expertise in the Inheritance Tax Act and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above donation amount was included in inheritance value or did not know it due to gross negligence, it is unlawful to determine the inheritance value of Article 9 (2) of the above.

The defendant argues that the disposition of this case was not actually assessed on the basis of the officially announced value at the time of commencing the inheritance, not at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and that it was not assessed on the basis of the officially announced value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. As seen earlier, the defendant's evaluation of the value based on the officially announced value in 1990 is recognized. However, according to each of the above evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2 and 3, which is the data related to the decision of taxation of this case, the defendant stated that he assessed the inheritance value in accordance with the main provision of Article 9 (2) of the above Act, and the deduction of Article 9 (3) of the above Act is made on the premise that this provision

Therefore, in the taxation of this case, the defendant should determine the value of the inherited property according to the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Act and Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. However, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the difficulty in calculating the market price of the real estate of this case, Article 5 (2) 1 and 1-2 of the above Enforcement Decree, which is a supplementary method of assessment, shall be followed. On the other hand, as seen in Article 2 of the Addenda of the above Enforcement Decree, which is the transitional provision of the above Enforcement Decree, the inheritance commenced before December 31, 1990, which was reported within the reporting period, notwithstanding the provisions of the amendment of Article 5, if it is reported under the previous provisions, it shall be based on the rate or the standard market price of taxation of the inherited property under the Local Tax Act, and if not reported, it shall be based on the result of the above amendment of the current Act, it shall be reasonable to apply the above amendment provision of this case.

다음에 공제 등에 관한 원고들의 둘째 주장 중 임대보증금의 공제주장에 관하여 보건대, 갑제8호증의 기재와 증인 이ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고들 주장처럼 위 망인이 1987. 1. 1. 소외 이ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 건물의 1층부분을 보증금 20,000,000원에 임대기간 3년으로 임대하였다가 기간만료 후 묵시적으로 갱신되어 현재까지 위 소외인이 이를 임차 사용중인 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 위 임차보증금 반환채무는 위 법 제4조 제1항 제3호 가 규정하는 채무로서 공제되어야 할 것이어서 이 부분에 대한 원고들의 주장은 이유있고, 다음에 인적공제에 관한 주장을 보건대, 위 법령의 규정에서 본 바와 같이 법 제11조 제1항 에 의하면 배우자, 자녀 및 장애자 등에 관하여 일정액을 공제하도록 규정하고 있으나, 한편 같은조 제3항에 의하면, 공제할 금액은 과세가액에서 증여가액을 공제한 잔액에 상당하는 금액을 초과하지 못한다고 하여 인적공제액에 대한 제한을 두고 있는 바, 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 망인에게는 증여재산인 이 사건 부동산 외에는 다른 상속재산이 없어 결국 법 제11조 제3항 의 제한규정에 의하여 같은조 제1항의 인적공제액은 없는 결과로 되므로 이 부분에 대한 원고들의 주장은 이유없고, 또한 이 사건 상속세를 상속인들 전원에게 부과하지 아니한 위법이 있다는 주장을 보건대, 상속세 납세의무자를 규정하고 있는 법 제18조 제1항 에 의하면, 상속인은 상속재산( 제4조 의 규정에 의하여 상속재산에 가산한 증여재산 중 상속인이 받은 증여재산 포함) 중 각자가 받았거나 받을 재산의 점유비율에 따라 상속세를 납부할 의무가 있다고 규정하고 있으므로 위 망인으로부터 증여받은 원고들만이 이 사건 상속세의 납세의무자이지 증여받지 아니한 위 소외인들까지 납세의무자가 되는 것은 아니어서 이 부분에 대한 원고들의 주장도 이유없다.

Finally, Article 47 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the government may impose penalty tax on a person who violates the obligation under the tax law as provided under the tax law, and Article 26 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that penalty tax shall be imposed on a non-reported and under-reported return. However, Article 48 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Articles 27 and 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that penalty tax may be reduced or exempted in cases of natural disasters, fire, serious crisis in business or other similar reasons. However, in light of that the penalty tax has the nature of administrative punishment or administrative sanction against the neglect of the obligation, it is reasonable to deem that it is not possible to impose penalty tax by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 48 (1) of the above Framework Act on International Taxes if there is a justifiable reason for the failure to file a non-reported return, as in this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is justified.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

According to the provisions of each of the above statutes and the determination by a party member as to the legitimate amount of inheritance tax regarding the instant real estate, the inheritance tax shall be KRW 15,940,190 (hereinafter the same shall apply) and the defense tax shall be KRW 3,188,040, respectively, as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, as shown in the separate sheet No. 2. Thus, the part of the disposition imposing taxes exceeding the legitimate amount of tax in the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the defendant's imposition disposition of KRW 50,03,924 against the plaintiffs exceeding KRW 15,940,190, and the part of the imposition disposition of KRW 8,288,490, respectively, exceeds KRW 3,188,040, respectively, of the tax imposition of KRW 8,288,490 against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining part of the above excess is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

July 23, 1993