The burden of proving the value of the inherited property

Since the tax authorities have the burden of proving the value of inherited property, the tax authorities should actively prove that there was no change in the market price between the time of commencement and the time of commencement of the inheritance.

Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 3101, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9231, Dec. 30, 1978); Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu812 delivered on May 3, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that, based on macroficial evidence, at the time the plaintiffs inherited the real estate of this case, the amount of KRW 14,700,000 in addition to the total amount of KRW 25,50,000 in addition to the total amount of KRW 25,50,000. In light of the records, the above recognition is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal;

According to Article 9 of the Inheritance Tax Act (Law No. 3101, Dec. 5, 1978), the value of inherited property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. According to Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value at the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance under Article 9(1) of the Act shall be based on the method stipulated in paragraphs (2) through (5) when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. The burden of proof as to the value of inherited property is to the defendant who is the tax authority, who is the defendant, and thus, the defendant must actively prove that there was no change in the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, not at the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, in assessing the inheritance value of the real estate in this case, the court below assessed 64,890,400 won of the property value of the real estate in this case appraised by the above Korea Appraisal Board on July 16, 1978, which was 4 months after the commencement date of the inheritance. Unless there are special circumstances such as where the above appraisal value does not adequately reflect the objective exchange value, it is reasonable to view that the above appraisal value is the market value at the time of the commencement of inheritance. In this case where there is no other assertion as to special circumstances like the above, it is justifiable to treat the plaintiffs by considering the inherited property value of the real estate in this case as the above appraisal value at the time of the commencement of inheritance. Thus, the court below held that the defendant did not have any assertion as to special circumstances such as that the appraisal value which was made after the transfer of the burden of proof does not properly reflect the market value at the time of the commencement of inheritance, which is recognized as the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance, which affected the judgment.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed on the basis of the Plaintiff’s appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)