[1] Requirements to regard the sale price of inherited property as the market price at the time of inheritance and the method of proving it

[2] The case holding that the sale price under a sales contract concluded after one month and 22 days from the date of inheritance is the market price at the time of inheritance of the inherited real estate

[1] The "market price" under Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) which provides the evaluation method of inherited property refers to the objective exchange price formed by normal transactions in principle. In a case where a sales contract is concluded after the expiration of the commencement date of inheritance with respect to inherited land, if the tax authority proves that there was no price fluctuation between the commencement date of inheritance and the conclusion date of the contract for sale, the sale price can be deemed as the market price at the time of inheritance unless there are other special circumstances, and there is no limitation on the method of proof

[2] The case holding that in case where forest land is inherited within the forest conservation zone and the land transaction permission zone and is traded for the land for the air, marine, and stock conditioning warehouse site under the agreement that it becomes effective simultaneously with the land transaction permission after one month and 22 days from the commencement date of inheritance, since the forest land can be used for the land for the agricultural, marine, and stock conditioning warehouse site under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, its sale price constitutes an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, and since it is proved that the land price has fallen between the commencement date of inheritance and the sale contract at the commencement date of inheritance, the sale price can be deemed as the market

[1] Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) (see Article 60(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 5(1) (see Article 60(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) (see Article 60(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 5(1) (see Article 60(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1469 of Dec. 31, 194)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu260 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1500), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6907 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1608) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu582 delivered on June 28, 198 (Gong198, 1163), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13240 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1746), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15325 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2295)

Plaintiff

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu4690 delivered on January 17, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) which provides the method of evaluating inherited property means, in principle, an objective exchange price formed through normal transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15325 of May 26, 1995, etc.). In a case where a sales contract was concluded after the expiration of the commencement date of inheritance, if the tax authority proves that there was no price fluctuation between the commencement date of inheritance and the conclusion date of the contract for the sale of inherited property, the sale price may be deemed as the market price at the time of inheritance unless there are any special circumstances, and there is no limit on the method of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6907 of Jun. 26, 1990).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff inherited the land under the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993) on June 1, 1992, the forest conservation area, the forest land designated and publicly notified as the land transaction permission area, and then sold 9,672m2 out of the land to the non-party Handong Air LLC Co., Ltd. for the land transaction permission at the same time as the land transaction permission was effective, and that the land price of the Gyeonggi-gun Forest land as stated in the judgment of the court below was reduced between the commencement of the above inheritance and the above sale contract date of the sale and purchase, and that the land within the forest conservation area was no more than the sale and purchase price of the land for the purpose of the sale and purchase contract which was formed for the purpose of the objective sale and sale of the land after the commencement of the sale and purchase contract and the price of the land is no more than the sale and purchase price of the land.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)