In the case where the heir's unique obligation to pay the inheritance tax has been determined under the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), the head of a tax office does not take procedures such as notifying the joint obligor of the arrears (affirmative)

Since the obligation to jointly pay inheritance tax under Article 18(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) becomes final and conclusive when the obligation to jointly pay inheritance tax becomes final and conclusive by law, the tax authority may initiate the collection procedure to the joint obligor without going through a separate procedure to determine the obligation to jointly pay taxes, and the procedure to notify the head of the tax office of the arrears under Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) cannot be deemed as the commencement requirement of the procedure to determine the obligation to jointly pay inheritance tax or the procedure to collect taxes, the head of the tax office initiated the collection procedure without going through the procedure to notify the arrears under the above provision.

Article 18(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Head of the Open Tax Office and one other

Lee Jae-ok et al., Counsel for the intervenor joining the Lee Jae-ok et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3313 delivered on November 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On August 11, 1981, the court below recognized the fact that the director of the defendant Ganpo Tax Office imposed the inheritance tax on the plaintiffs and the non-party's accommodation, the entrance and exit, and the plaintiff's failure to pay the inheritance tax. The court below was just in light of the records, and there was no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. The duty of joint and several payment of inheritance tax under Article 18(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981) is legally fixed as a matter of course due to the determination of the heir’s duty of tax payment of unique inheritance tax. Thus, when the heir’s duty of tax payment becomes final and conclusive, the tax authority may commence the collection procedure for the joint and several payment obligor without undergoing a separate procedure for the determination of the duty of tax payment.

In this case, the procedure of notification of default to the head of tax office under Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) which applies to this case cannot be deemed as a procedure for the confirmation of the obligation to jointly pay inheritance taxes or the starting requirement of the collection procedure. Thus, the head of tax office shall not be deemed as unlawful by starting the collection procedure without going through the procedure such as notification of default under the above provision. The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error

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

Justices Yoon Young-hoon (Presiding Justice)