astronomical Support-2016-Li11584 ( October 10, 2017)

There is room to regard the permission for payment in kind as the discretionary act.

There is room for the permission for payment in kind to be a discretionary act under the relevant legal provisions, and it is difficult to deem that there is an error of disposal because the land subject to payment in kind constitutes a reserved land for replotting and the litigation is under way.

2017Na113608 Undue gains

Park AA

B to B

August 23, 2018

November 8, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,55,949 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: "The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, which is the 18th 18th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. Parts in height:

A. Article 73(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The payment in kind may be permitted" in the main sentence, and it does not grant permission for payment in kind to an administrative agency's discretion. The payment in kind takes the form of language that administrative agency's discretion, compared to cash payment, the collection procedure is complicated, the State has a lot of collection expenses due to the management and disposal of the property paid in kind. The payment in kind is a principle of cash payment, and the entire purport of pleadings is taken into account the statement in evidence No. 1. 2, the Director of the tax office's office on December 7, 2012, "each land in this case" is only 54% of the current progress rate, and it is not appropriate to determine that the above development project is subject to the "D Hot Spring Tourist Tourist Site Development Project" as a site for D Hot Spring Tourist Site Development Project, etc., and it constitutes a land substitution and rearrangement project under Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is not suitable for the above disposal in kind 2, as well as the above.

B.1) former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014)

60(1), (2), and (3), and Article 61(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (2013)

2. According to Article 49 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 24358 of 15, Jan. 15, 200)

The market price is according to the market price as of the commencement date of the inheritance. Here, the market price includes sale, appraisal, expropriation or public auction (referring to an auction under the Civil Execution Act) or public auction at the normally established price in cases where transactions are made freely between many and unspecified persons, and in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price, the price assessed as the officially assessed individual land price shall be deemed as the market price in consideration of the type, scale

However, examining whether the market price of each of the lands of this case is impossible to calculate, it is legitimate to assess the market price based on the officially assessed individual land price, which is a supplementary assessment method for each of the lands of this case, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 16 (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2) From among each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff: (a) the fact that Xxxxx land was designated as a planned land substitution for land partitioning around 1999 (Evidence No. 10); (b) the officially assessed land price of each of the instant lands was sharply increased as of January 1, 2004 (Evidence No. 11); (c) the development project for Dhot Spring Tourist Site was extended for a certain period without any particular progress (Evidence No. 12, 13); and (d) the case of Xx land was assessed as KRW 915,607,000, and the inherited property value was assessed as KRW 201,18,000 in the public sale procedure on December 4, 2017 (Evidence No. 17 evidence and evidence No. 7); (d) the assessment based on the value of inherited property based on the publicly assessed land price was unlawful; however, it is difficult to deem the decision to impose the inheritance tax as unlawful on the sole basis of such circumstance.

C. (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3221 Decided November 13, 2001 cited by the plaintiff as the ground for the plaintiff is jointly held.

Cases concerning the scope of liability of an inheritor for joint and several liability for inheritance tax, and for the proprietary property of an inheritor

The attachment disposition is legitimate, and the attachment disposition should first be made about the inherited property.

No meaning is that it is not appropriate to invoke this case).

3. The addition;

The plaintiff asserts that the defect of the provisional disposition of this case, which is null and void as a matter of course, is succeeded to the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax and disposition of arrears, which are subsequent dispositions, or that the defect of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax, which is void as a matter of course, is succeeded to the disposition of arrears.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.