Where the market price of the inherited property has been proved in a lawsuit for revocation of a tax disposition after evaluating the value of the inherited property by the standard market price, the judgment criteria for whether the tax disposition is unlawful

In imposing inheritance tax, even if the tax authority assessed the value of inherited property as the standard market value for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market value of inherited property at the time of inheritance, if it proves the market value of inherited property by the time of closing argument in the lawsuit for revocation of the tax disposition, then the tax authority should determine whether the amount of tax assessed exceeds the reasonable tax amount.

Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Liability for Proof)

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu345 delivered on October 14, 1980 (Gong1980, 1330) 84Nu551 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 1046) 89Nu3854 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1002)

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu9830 delivered on May 26, 1994

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant’s failure is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the deceased non-party 1,660,948,000 won of the price for the property disposed of within one year before the date the inheritance commences, which was 156,00,000 won for the property disposed of by the plaintiffs, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, was returned to 8 lessees, including the building on the site of this case, including non-party 2, and that 80,546,00 won was paid as the purchase price for the school site of this case to non-party 3, non-party 4, and non-party 5,00 won was paid as the purchase price for the school site of this case, and the measures including the taxable amount are justified, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, in the incomplete deliberation or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

A party member who asserts a theory of lawsuit is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case, unlike this case. There is no reason to discuss.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

A. The judgment of the court below as to the point that theory of lawsuit points out (the disposal price of the property disposed of before one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance by the non-party deceased was 10 million won in amount, and the amount was 150 million won in amount, and each purchase of the forest land and the commercial building in this case was 98 million won in gold, and the above amount was 15 million won in amount, and the cost of removal of the building on the land in this case was paid. The above amount was objectively obvious in its use) is just in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality or burden of proof due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or the incomplete trial. There is no ground for appeal as to this point.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to calculate the reasonable inheritance tax amount against the plaintiffs, the court below assessed the value of the forest land and commercial building of this case among the plaintiffs' inherited property of this case on the ground that the defendant assessed it based on the standard market price at the time of the tax disposition of this case, and calculated the inheritance tax amount against the plaintiffs

However, Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) which was enforced at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the value of inherited property shall be calculated based on the current status as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Under Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990), the current status as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be calculated based on the market price as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. If it is difficult to calculate the market price based on the current status as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the value of inherited property shall be assessed based on the market price as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, even if there is a dispute over the amount of inherited property recognized in the taxation disposition, it is difficult to determine the amount of tax base at the present.

According to the records, the defendant argued in the court below that if the non-party deceased acquired the forest and commercial buildings of this case, which are inherited property in return for the property disposed of within one year before the commencement of the inheritance, the acquisition value thereof shall be the market value (refer to the records No. 441 and No. 442). The plaintiffs purchased the forest land of this case from the non-party 7 on April 19, 1988 to the price of 150 million won, and on May 24 of the same year, the commercial building of this case from the non-party 8 on June 18 and August 5 of the same year, and submitted a written contract, receipt, and a copy of the register as evidence (refer to the above evidence No. 5 and No. 8, No. 1 through 3, No. 222-1 and No. 8, No. 266). In light of the fact that the plaintiff purchased the forest and commercial buildings of this case from the non-party 7 on May 18 of the same year.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deliberate and decide on the market price of the forest land and commercial building in this case, such as whether the above acquisition value can be recognized as the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance of the forest land and commercial building in this case, and committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding legal principles as to the evaluation of inherited property or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's failure is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. All of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)