[1] In a case where there is an error in the taxation disposition even if a taxpayer paid all the inheritance tax imposed after the taxation disposition, whether the taxation authority can make a correction disposition by itself (affirmative), and in a case where each heir’s tax amount is modified even if the total amount of inheritance tax is not changed, whether the correction disposition should be made (affirmative)

[2] The purport of Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] Even if a taxpayer paid all the inheritance tax, etc. imposed after a taxation disposition, if any error exists in the taxation disposition, the tax authority may make a correction disposition by itself to correct such error, and since the inheritance tax borne by each inheritor is its own tax liability, the change of the total inheritance tax amount by each inheritor is subject to a correction disposition, even if there is no change in the total inheritance tax amount.

[2] The provisions of Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) are as follows: (a) where the tax authority proves that the amount of disposal of inherited property is objectively unclear, in order to prevent a taxpayer from unfairly reducing inheritance by donation or inheritance to his heir in cash, for which it is not easy to capture taxation data; and (b) if the tax authority proves that the amount is objectively unclear, the amount can be included in the taxable value of inherited property even if the taxpayer fails to prove the purpose of use of the disposal money in cash, and if the taxpayer establishes the whole amount of disposal money, it shall be deemed that 80/100 (95/100 of such excess amount if it exceeds one billion won) of the total amount of disposal money, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the total amount has been included in the taxable value of inherited property.

[1] Article 25 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996), Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) (see current Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) (see current Article 11 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du3075 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 159), Supreme Court Decision 98Du4993 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2122), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1679 delivered on June 23, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1774)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Article 20 (Rectification of Tax Office: Head of Southern Additional Tax Office)

Busan High Court Decision 98Nu3938 delivered on December 3, 1999

Each appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Even if a taxpayer paid all the inheritance tax imposed after the tax assessment, if there is an error in the taxation disposition, the tax authority may make a correction to correct it, and since the inheritance tax borne by each heir is its own tax liability, it is necessary to revise the inheritance tax burden of each heir, even if there is no change in the total amount of the inheritance tax, it is necessary to make a correction disposition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition of notice.

The grounds of appeal are rejected.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The plaintiffs knew that at the time of the disposition of this case, the trust interest, etc. among the inherited property of this case was used by Nonparty 1, the predecessor, but did not include them in the taxable value of inherited property. Accordingly, even though the plaintiffs did not make a claim for deduction of living expenses for the taxable value of inherited property in the pre-trial procedure, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's assertion that the trust interest, etc. of this case should be added to the taxable value of inherited property is contrary to the principle of good faith.

In regard to this, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ assertion premised on the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant disposition, did not include the above trust interest, etc. in the taxable value of inherited property on the grounds as alleged by the Plaintiffs, is groundless, except evidence to

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the principle of good faith as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and as long as the defendant alleged in the court below that the trust interest of this case should be added to the taxable value of inherited property, there is no violation of the principle of good faith

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the third, fourth, and fifth points

A. Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the category of property and at least 100 million won, and if the purpose of use is objectively unclear, such amount shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4," and Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) delegated by the provision provides that "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" shall be included in the taxable value under Article 7-2 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14469 of Dec. 31, 1994) of the amount disposed of or bearing an obligation, if the amount received by the ancestor exceeds one billion won, it shall be excluded."

The provisions stipulate that if the tax authority proves that there is an amount objectively unclear in order to prevent the illegal reduction of the use of the proceeds from the disposal of inherited property by donation or inheritance to the heir in cash, for which it is not easy to ascertain the collection of taxation data, the tax authority shall allow the taxpayer to include the amount in the taxable value of inherited property even if it is difficult for the taxpayer to prove the use of the proceeds from the disposal of inherited property in cash, and if the taxpayer proves 80/10 (95/100 of the excess amount if it exceeds 1 billion won) or more of the total amount of the proceeds from the disposal of inherited property, it shall be deemed that the whole amount has been proven, and it shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property.

B. The court below held that the above disposal price of the deceased non-party 1 is KRW 1,328,624,213, and the non-party 1 donated KRW 200,000 to the plaintiff 2, etc. who is his own food, in addition to KRW 752,670,395, which the defendant recognized his use place, and paid KRW 31,239,600,00 for daily living expenses and KRW 20,000 for KRW 31,239,60,000 for daily living expenses, but there is no evidence to support that the non-party 1 paid the above disposal price of the deceased non-party 1's inherited property for more than 209,03,909,95 (752,670,395 + 200,000,000 + 31,630,000,000,000,000 won, which is objectively below 1361,201,061.

C. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and decision by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, the rules of experience, or the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, or incomplete deliberation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the precedents stated in the grounds of appeal are different cases, and it

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

4. On the sixth ground for appeal

If Nonparty 2 owned a building with 1,020.80 square meters and 445.60 square meters and 2 above ground buildings in Busan-gu ( Address 1 omitted), and leased them under his name on May 5, 1987, the lower court determined that: (a) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, the husband of Nonparty 1 and his children jointly inherited 1/3 shares of the site and buildings; (b) on December 23, 1992, the above ( Address 1 omitted) sold 760 square meters of the above site to Korea Telecommunication Corporation and agreed to remove 3.5 billion won of the above building; and (c) Nonparty 1 should be deemed to have been jointly removed and disposed of the property rights and obligations of Nonparty 1, the property rights and obligations of Nonparty 1, the owner of the building, and the property rights and obligations of Nonparty 3, the owner of Nonparty 1, the tenant 1, the tenant of Nonparty 1, the tenant of Nonparty 1, the tenant of the building, and the property rights and obligations of the tenant 3000.

In comparison with records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the law of gift and experience as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The grounds of appeal are also rejected.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)