In accordance with Article 3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the content of the duty of joint and several payment to be borne by each co-inheritors in respect of the inheritance of other co-inheritors, and in cases where the portion to be reverted to a specific person among co-inheritors according to their statutory share of inheritance before the division of the inherited property has been granted in the payment of the inheritance tax, whether such portion shall be deemed as the total inheritance cost

Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an inheritor is liable to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio of the property each has received or is to be received. Paragraph (4) thereof stipulates that an inheritor is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax within the limit of the property each has received or is to be received. According to the aforementioned statutory provisions, each co-inheritors is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax of other co-inheritors, along with the inherent liability to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio of the property that he/she received or to receive by inheritance, among the total amount of inheritance calculated based on the total value of the inherited property of the inheritee as the taxable value of the inherited property of each co-inheritors. However, in relation to each co-inheritors, each co-inheritors is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax of another co-inheritors within the limits of the property they received or to receive by inheritance. Therefore, in a case of joint inheritance, the co-inheritors shall not be considered as a part attributable to a specific co-inheritors’s’ payment of inherited property.

Article 3(1) (see current Article 3(1) and (4) (see current Article 3(3)) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Claimant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm oriented, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 3 and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Tae-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other 5

Seoul High Court Order 201B115, 116 dated January 10, 2013

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The lower court: (a) jointly inherited each property indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 5 [Attachment No. 1] of the lower court’s order that is the wife of the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the other party 3, the other party 4, the other party 2, the claimant, and the other party 5 jointly inherited each property indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 5, the inherited property of the deceased; (b) even though the agreement on the division of inherited property has been reached among the co-inheritors including the other party 1 on the division of inherited property with respect to the property indicated in the separate sheet No. 5, but such agreement has not been reached regarding the remaining property; (c) as to each property listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4, the above co-inheritors’s legal share of inherited property and the transfer of shares are completed; and (d) as the other party 5 was delinquent in paying the inherited property tax imposed on him, the other party 1 was jointly and severally liable to receive the inherited property payment.

2. However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

A. Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an inheritor is obligated to pay inheritance according to the ratio of property each person received or is to receive. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that an inheritor shall be jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance within the limit of property each person received or is to receive. According to the foregoing statutory provisions, each co-inheritors are jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of property that he/she received or to receive by inheritance among the total value of inherited property calculated based on the total value of the inherited property of the deceased, each co-inheritors is jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax to other co-inheritors within the limits of property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du9530, Nov. 27, 2001). However, in relation to each co-inheritors, each co-inheritors is jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax to other co-inheritors, as well as the inherent liability of the co-inheritors prior to payment of inherited property.

B. However, even based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, the public auction property of this case was reverted to the other party 5 according to the statutory inherited property prior to the division of the inherited property of this case, and was granted the inheritance tax payment imposed on the other party 5 other than the above co-inheritors. In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the public auction property of this case should not be excluded from the inherited property subject to division by deeming that the public auction property of this case was granted the inheritance payment to

C. Nevertheless, the court below excluded the public auction property of this case from inherited property subject to division by deeming that the public auction property of this case was provided by all co-inheritors including other co-inheritors 1. This order of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of inherited property subject to division in the division of inherited property, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)