The meaning of Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act where "value based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, i.e., the market price."

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act “The value based on the current status at the time of the commencement of inheritance, i.e., the value based on the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance,” in cases where the value of the inherited or donated real estate has already been calculated by a reliable institution with respect to the real estate within the nearest period before and after the commencement of inheritance, it refers to the cases where the relevant real estate is provided as security to a financial institution, etc., or where the market price can be objectively calculated due to the sale or purchase of the relevant real estate or similar real estate, etc., after the commencement of inheritance, the market price at the time of the commencement

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

1. Of the disposition imposing inheritance tax on the Plaintiff as of October 16, 1981, the part exceeding KRW 78,602,515 and KRW 15,720,503 which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff as of October 16, 1981, which exceeds KRW 272,07,071 of the inheritance tax amount of KRW 1,360,357.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 78,602,515 of inheritance tax against the plaintiff as of October 16, 1981 by the defendant and KRW 15,720,503 of that defense tax shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the imposition disposition; and

피고가 1981. 10. 16. 청구취지에 기재된 바와 같이 원고에 대하여 상속세 금 78,602,515원, 동 방위세 금 15,720,503원을 부과처분(이하 이 사건 부과처분이라 한다)한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제11호증의 1내지 3(상속세신고서, 상속세신고납부계산서, 상속재산명세서, 을 제10호증과 같음), 같은 갑 제12호증(압류통지서) 같은 갑 제13호증(과세가액통지서, 을 제8호증과 같음), 같은 갑 제15호증의 1, 2(감정회보, 감정평가서, 을 제11, 12호증과 같음), 같은 갑 제15호증의 1, 2(감정회보, 감정평가서, 을 제11, 12호증과 같음), 같은 갑 제23호증(호적등본), 같은 을 제6호증(과세가액결의서), 같은 을 제7호증(결정서), 같은 을 제9호증(보충조사서), 같은 을 제13호증(감정의뢰서)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 소외 1(이하 피상속인이라 한다) 이 1981. 2. 1. 사망하자, 그의 외아들인 원고가 위 망인의 유일한 재산상속인으로서 상속세를 신고, 납부하기 위하여 1981. 4. 30. 피고에게 상속재산가액으로 별지 제1 의 상속재산 가액표의 품명란 1의 (가)기재 대지는 금 18,180,000원으로, 같은란 2의 전화가입권 집기비품등은 도합금 5,733,500원으로, 또 원고가 상속개시전 3년이내에 피상속인으로부터 증여받은(1978. 9. 12. 13.자) 재산의 가액으로 같은 란 3, 기재 건물은 합계금 65,000,000원으로 신고(총합계금 88,913,500원)한 사실, 이에 대하여 피고는 1981. 10. 16. 원고의 위 신고내용에는 상속 또는 증여받은 재산중 일부의 탈루와 그 가액산정에 오류가 있다고 하여 실지조사한 나머지 원고가 상속 또는 증여받은 재산으로서 신고하지 아니한 것이라고 별지 제1, 상속재산가액표의 품명란 1의 (나)기재 대지에 대하여는 상속개시당시 현황에 의한 가격이라고 하여 1981. 6. 17. 한국감정원에 감정의뢰하여 감정된 가격으로 산정한 금 30,528,000원을 상속재산의 가액에 포함시키고, 같은란 1의 (다) 기재건물 역시 상속개시당시 현황에 의한 가격이라 하여 위 감정된 가격으로 산정한 금 6,897,000원을 상속개시전 3년이내 증여받은 재산의 가액에 포함시키는 한편 원고가 위에서 본 상속 또는 증여받은 재산으로 선고한 것중 상속개시 당시의 과세시가표준에 따라 신고한 것이라는 같은란 1의 (가)기재 대지와 3, 기재 건물에 대하여는 상속개시 당시의 현황에 의한 가액을 알 수 있는 경우라고 하여, 원고의 앞서본 신고가액을 부인하고 그 현황에 의한 가액 즉, 앞서본 감정가액에 의하여 위 대지는 금 100,200,000원으로, 위 건물은 금 98,105,410원으로 각 산정하고 나머지 상속재산인 같은란 2, 기재 전화가입권 집기 비품등에 대하여는 그것을 처분할 때에 취득할 수 있다고 예상되는 가액을 조사하여 도합금 3,007,498원(이에 관하여는 원고도 다투지 않음)으로 감액함과 동시에 부의금 1,636,000원을 추가합산하여 원고의 총상속 및 증여받은 재산의 가액을 위 합게금 240,373,908원(위 상속재산 합계금 135,371,498원+위 증여재산 합계금 105,002,410원)으로 보고, 당시의 상속세법 제4조 소정의 공제에 해당하는 피상속인의 부채와 장례비 합계금 32,314,431원(이에 관하여도 원고는 다투지 않음)과 같은법 제5조 소정의 기초공제해당액 금 8,000,000원을 공제한 나머지 금 200,059,477원을 과세표준액으로 삼고, 이에 같은법 제14조 소정의 세율 57/100을 적용하여 산출된 세액금 98,003,901원에서 같은법 제18조 제3항 의 위 증여재산에 대하여 원고에게 기히 부과된 증여세 금 19,401,386원을 공제한 나머지 금 78,602,515원을 상속세로, 이에 대한 20/100인 15,720,503원을 방위세로 각 결정하여 위에서 본바와 같이 원고에게 부과처분한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증없다.

2. Assertion and determination

On the ground of each of the above reasons for commencing the inheritance, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the above construction was no more than the 1st day of the commencement date of the inheritance and the 1st day of the registration on the title of the 1st day of the inheritance (the 1st day of the above construction) and the 1st day of the above construction (the 2nd day of the registration on the 1st day of the inheritance) were no more than the 1st day before the commencement date of the inheritance, and the 1st day of the registration on the 1st day of the above construction (the 2nd day of the registration on the 1st day of the inheritance) was no more than the 1st day before the commencement date of the inheritance, and the 2nd day of the registration on the 1st day of the above construction (the 2nd day of the registration on the 1st day of the inheritance) was no more than the 1st day before the commencement date of the inheritance, and the 1st day of the registration on the 1st day of the inheritance, as well as the 1st day of the above appraisal price.

The following facts are not based on the market price of the Plaintiff’s inherited or donated property, i.e., the market price, i., whether the market price is illegal or not, and Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of inherited property and the value of donated property to be added to the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status as at the time of the commencement of inheritance. Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when it is difficult to calculate the market price based on the above current status, the value according to the current status shall be based on the standard market price. In this context, where the value according to the current status as at the time of commencement of inheritance, i.e., the value according to the current status as at the time of the commencement of inheritance, has already been calculated by the public trust institution on the inherited or donated real property within the distance before and after the commencement of inheritance, or where the market price can be objectively calculated based on the market price as at the time of the commencement of inheritance, the market price was newly determined by the appraisal institution or similar property value before and after the commencement of inheritance.

Therefore, according to the statement of No. 17 (Land Register) and No. 16 (Land Register) as to the value of the property inherited or donated first to the plaintiff, the current class No. 1 is 74 on February 1, 1981, and the current class No. 1 is 70 on February 1, 1981, the current class No. 70 on which the plaintiff received 74 on February 1, 1981, and according to the land grade table under the Local Tax Act, the above class No. 74 is 180,00 won on the above 70,000 won and 700 won are 10,000 won and 30 won are 60,000 won and 60 won are 30,000 won are 60,000 won and 60,000 won are 30,000 won and 60,000 won are 30,000 won are 631,63714,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the inheritance tax to be borne by the plaintiff shall be KRW 1,360,357, and the defense tax shall be KRW 272,071. Thus, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding KRW 1,360,357, and the defense tax shall be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition as reasonable, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as without merit, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) Guil-do