(a) Whether Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1, May 1, 1990) applies even in the case of failure to make a report or omission of a report on the commencement of inheritance before December 31

B. The responsibility to claim the specific facts of the illegality in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation on the ground of the illegality of the administrative disposition

A. Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, May 1, 1990) provides that a special provision to give preferential treatment to taxpayers who cooperate in national tax collection procedures and induce them to report in good faith, and the contents that limit the scope of the application to the reported matters cannot be deemed as a provision to be invalid in violation of the right to equality under the Constitution. In addition, it cannot be deemed as a provision premised on Article 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) that is null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality. Thus, it cannot be interpreted that it should be evaluated in accordance with the former Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment, as the case of failure to report or omission

B. If there is a special circumstance in an administrative litigation, the relevant disposition agency should claim and prove the legality of the relevant administrative disposition, but even if there is no ex officio principle in the administrative litigation, so long as the party principle and pleading principle are still based on the basic structure of the administrative disposition, the claim for the cancellation should first claim the specific facts of the administrative disposition except for the matters to be investigated ex officio.

A. Article 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (liability for admission) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, May 1, 199); Article 11(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9286 delivered on September 14, 1993, and 93Nu2021 delivered on December 28, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 572) B. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu510 delivered on June 23, 1981 (Gong1981, 14104)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu19605 delivered on June 16, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff et al. inherited the real estate of this case on October 30, 1990, but did not make a report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act, and the defendant calculated the above inherited property at a price based on the officially assessed individual land price pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993 of May 1, 1990). Since the land among the real estate of this case is designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the court below rejected the plaintiff et al.'s assertion that the land should be assessed by the percentage method under Article 5 (2) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, since the plaintiff et al. did not make a report under Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act as to the inherited property of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case was not designated by the publicly assessed land price.

The issue is that, as inheritance commenced before December 31, 190 and within the reporting period, the assessment of the reported property is appraised by the standard market value under the Local Tax Act, i.e., the value of the inherited property. Unlike the case of non-declaration or omission of inheritance tax, the assessment of the value of the inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance and that of the appraised value at the time of imposition of inheritance should be the larger amount between the appraised value at the time of commencement of inheritance and the appraised value at the time of imposition of inheritance. Article 9(2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is premised on Article 9(2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; Article 9(1) of the same Act is deleted by the amendment of the Act; Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act should not be interpreted to be the same as that of the reported tax collection prior to December 31, 9, 199.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

Unless there are special circumstances in administrative litigation, the relevant disposition agency should prove the legitimacy of the relevant administrative disposition, but even if there is no ex officio principle in administrative litigation, so long as the party-based pleading principle is still based on the basic structure of the party-based pleading principle in administrative litigation, when a request for cancellation is made on the ground of illegality of administrative disposition, the specific facts of the illegality should first be asserted except for the ex officio investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu510 delivered on June 23, 191).

However, in evaluating the value of the inherited property of this case, the plaintiff is presumed to fall under the case where it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. However, the purport of the defendant's notice of imposition of the inherited property of this case is that the method of imposition is unlawful by indicating the taxpayer's "non-party 2" only in the notice of imposition of the inheritance tax of this case, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the plaintiff's notice of imposition of the inheritance tax of this case can not be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)