Cases of determining that the obligation of the inheritee is a processed obligation created to reduce the taxable value of inherited property;

If a person who borrowed money by the decedent is in a separate relationship with the decedent, and at the time of the borrowing, no certificate was issued, and only a promissory note was issued as a certificate for his death and had been issued and actively engaged in business activities with considerable financial power until the decedent died, and if there are considerable cash and deposit balance in the company that he operated, it is sufficient to doubt that the obligation of the decedent was a false processing obligation created to reduce the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and the judgment of the court, etc. on it became final and conclusive after the decedent’s death, and it is not a reason to exclude the doubt that the obligation is a processed obligation.

Article 4 of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ulsan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu47 delivered on November 1, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the facts established by the court below and the contents of the obligations of the deceased 1, 2, 3, 100, 100 won for the above 1,000 won for the above 4, 1,000 won for the non-party 1, 3,000 won for the above 8,00 won for the non-party 1, 1,000 won for the above 4,00 won for the non-party 2, 1,000 won for the above 1,00 won for the non-party 3,00 won for the non-party 8,00 won for the non-party 1,00 won for the above 1,00 won for the non-party 2,00 won for the non-party 3,00 won for the above 1,00 won for the non-party 1,000 won for the non-party 1,000 won for the above 9,000 won for the non-party 1,

As seen above, in light of the fact that the person who lent money to the decedent is one of the persons having a separate relationship with the decedent and other special relationship (employment relationship), the decedent's debt to four persons at the time of the original adjudication is sufficient to doubt that the decedent's debt to the decedent was a debt for false processing created to reduce the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and that there was a judgment of loss by payment order or constructive confession of the decedent after his death, and that there was no doubt that the decedent's debt to the decedent's debt was a debt for false processing, and that there was a judgment of loss by such judgment after his death, and that there was a false doubt that it was a debt for false processing.

The judgment of the court below that the debt of the appellant with the 4-Appellant cannot be recognized as a genuine debt of the inheritee on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law in finding evidence and finding facts contrary to the reasoning and the rule of experience, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)