Whether the value appraised by the Korea Appraisal Board at the time of the commencement of the inheritance can be considered as the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (affirmative)

Since the market price of real estate in Korea belongs to the publicly notified fact that there was a rise in the market price of real estate in Korea, the appraised by the Korea Appraisal Board at least four months prior to the commencement of the inheritance cannot be deemed to be the higher price than the market price at the time of the inheritance, and there is no data to deem that there was a decline in the market price between them, it is reasonable to view

Article 9(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 5(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu177 delivered on June 26, 1984, 85Nu256 delivered on July 23, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Head of Dong Busan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu214 delivered on January 23, 1985

The defendant's appeal against plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is dismissed.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of the appeal above shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the appeal against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6:

The judgment of the court below is based on its reasoning. The defendant's assertion of non-existence of tax amounting to 41,122,878 won and defense tax amounting to 8,224,575 won and 41,122,878 won and defense tax amounting to 8,224,575 won under the tax disposition of this case can be recognized as having been paid in full on October 25, 1983, and there is no counter-proof. As long as the tax disposition of this case was completed by the payment of the imposed tax amount, the existence of the tax claim as long as the execution of the tax disposition of this case is completed by the payment of the imposed tax amount, and there is no legal apprehension or risk that may be caused to the plaintiffs in the future due to the extinction of the tax claim and remaining appearance of the tax return of the already paid tax amount, and therefore, there is no direct method such as the claim for return of unjust enrichment by civil procedure. Thus, the plaintiff

The purport of the above decision is that as long as the plaintiffs already paid the whole amount of tax in accordance with the defendant's original taxation, there is no legal uncertainty or risk, so it is clear that there is no need to protect the rights to seek confirmation of non-existence of the disposition in this case, and therefore, it is clear that the tax disposition in this case against the plaintiffs does not exist from the beginning, the theory of misapprehension of the legal principles from the erroneous understanding of the contents of the decision cannot be adopted.

2. As to the appeal against the plaintiff 1:

1. According to the records, the Supreme Court of Daegu, Daegu, 82Gu100, and party members 83Nu145, which claimed in the lawsuit, made the same inheritance as this case as this case's taxation grounds. However, the subject of the lawsuit in the case was a disposition of 4,000,000 won for the basic year determined by annual payment in annual installments, and it is clear that the subject of the lawsuit in the case was not subject to the following administrative litigation. Thus, the judgment against the plaintiff in the case did not affect the res judicata effect on the disposition of imposition in the second year's imposition in the second year. Thus, the judgment of the court below in this purport does not affect the res judicata effect on the disposition of imposition in the second year's imposition in the second year. Thus, there is no objection to the final judgment that differs from the just opinion

2. According to Articles 9(1) and 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667, Dec. 31, 1981), which was enforced at the time of commencing the inheritance, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of commencing the inheritance, and if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and the value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be calculated based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act in a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. The burden of proof on the value of inherited property shall not be said to be against the defendant, who is the tax authority, at the time of commencing the inheritance.

The above party members judgment should be actively proved by the taxation office that there was no change in the market price at the time of donation of the market price at the time of the expiration of 3.20. of the donation (the increase in the market price of real estate) since the case of appraisal close to the commencement of inheritance is different from the case of appraisal prior to the commencement of inheritance, the decision of the court below cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent. Thus, the theory of the lawsuit that points out this issue cannot be seen as an action against the rules of evidence because it is reasonable to misunderstanding the purport of the above judgment of the party members and it cannot be viewed as an action against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal against plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the same part shall be borne by the losing party, and the costs of appeal against plaintiffs 1 among the judgment below shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal against plaintiffs 1.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)