Calculation of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes in cases where cash inheritance is considered;

The purport of Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3(3)1 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is that where the disposal value of inherited property or the amount of debts is not less than 50,000,000 won, among these provisions, the inheritance tax shall be deemed to have been inherited in cash and included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, so if the tax authority proves that the purpose of use is not objectively clear, the amount may be included in the value of inherited property even if it does not prove the fact that the amount has become cash inheritance. However, if the disposal value of inherited property or the amount of debts is less than 50,000,000 won, the above provision shall not apply. Therefore, even if there is an amount which is objectively unclear, even if there is an amount which is not objectively clear, it may be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes only if the tax authority proves the fact that the

Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 3(3)1 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

The Director of the National Tax Service

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1527 delivered on February 2, 1989

Of the part of the judgment below’s failure, the part pertaining to the non-taxation amount of the taxable amount of inheritance tax of KRW 27,636,270 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part of this appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above deceased's 50,00,000 won out of the ordinary loan 10,000,000 won and the certificate of deposit 50,000,000 won, and 27,636,270 won, which the defendant acknowledged that the purpose of use of the above deceased's 10,000,000 won is unclear, were to claim that the above deceased's 27,636,270 won were to have repaid her debts he borrowed from the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 before the death of the deceased non-party 1, and deducted the remainder from the above 521,328 won as the interest of the deceased's 50,00,000 won, and paid the remainder to the ordinary account of the non-party 2's bank account account of the non-party 3 and the above 25,000,000 won are unlawful, barring special circumstances.

Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where an appellant disposes of inherited property within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, if the amount is calculated by calculating 50 million won or more for each type of property, and the amount is calculated by calculating 50 million won or more for each type of property, and if the purpose of use is objectively unclear, and is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4. Accordingly, Article 2(3)1 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act lists cases where the disposal value of the inherited property or the amount of debts exceeds 50 million won, the purport of each provision is that if the disposal value of the inherited property or the amount of debts exceeds 50 million won, it

Therefore, when the tax authority proves that the purpose of use is objectively unclear, even if the amount is not proven to have become cash inheritance, it can be included in the value of inherited property even if it does not prove the fact that it has become a cash inheritance, while the above provision does not apply in cases where the disposal value of inherited property or the amount of debts is less than 50 million won, so even if there is an amount which is objectively unclear, even if there is an amount which is not objectively clear, it can be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes,

In this case, the defendant alleged that the deceased non-party 1's 50 million won from the bank was not appropriated for the repayment of genuine debts, and thus the use prescribed in Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is not objectively clear. If the existence of the debt against the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 with the above amount is not confirmed, the use of the debt amount can be deemed to be objectively unclear in light of the provision of Article 3 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. Thus, the court below should first have deliberated and judged the existence of the debt against the non-party 2 and the non-party 3.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the purpose of the above loan is clear without recognizing only the fact that the above loan 50,000,000 won was deposited in the deposit account of the above non-party 2 and the above non-party 3 without any name, and held that the use of the above loan has been committed by misapprehending the legal principles as to the inheritance taxation and inclusion of the amount of debt in the calculation of the inheritance tax, and it is reasonable to discuss this point.

2. In addition, the judgment of the court below against the non-party 4's debt amounting to KRW 8,00,000,000 is alleged to be erroneous in incomplete deliberation and in violation of the rules of evidence. However, in light of the records, the court below's examination of the evidence reveals that the deceased non-party 1's debt amounting to KRW 8,00,000,000 at the time of commencement of the inheritance is legitimate and there is no error in the law like the theory of lawsuit in the process of the preparation of evidence.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding non-Inclusion in taxable amount of inheritance tax of 27,636,270 won is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding this part of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)