A. Whether Article 5(2)1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act violates the principle of substantial taxation

B. Whether the tax authority should assert and prove the circumstances in which it is difficult for the tax authority to calculate the market price in order to evaluate inherited property according to the standard market price table prepared and announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to the provision

A. Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1293, May 1, 1990) provides that Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) shall apply to the assessment of inherited property, leading to the adoption of the market value principle with respect to the assessment of inherited property. Thus, the standard market price table (public notice) of a specific area prepared and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to the delegation provision of the same Act is merely the selection of a specific area requiring an occasional specialized judgment and the determination of the applicable distribution rate by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service due to changes in the national economic situation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the standard market price table itself does

B. The burden of proving that the appraisal of inherited property by the method of specific multiples on the standard market price table was a supplementary assessment method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencement of inheritance or when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of imposition of inheritance and there was no choice but to select a supplementary assessment method due to difficult reason

A. B. Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, May 1, 1990); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (liability for admission)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu20933 delivered on January 28, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, May 1, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that Article 5 (1) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12993, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) intends to approach the evaluation of inherited property based on Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) with the intent of adopting the principle of market price. Thus, the standard market price table (public notice) of a specific area prepared and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to the delegation provision of the above Enforcement Decree is merely a determination of the selection of a specific area requiring an occasional specialized judgment due to changes in the national economic situation and its applicable share rate, and thus,

However, the assessment of inherited property by the specific rate method in accordance with the above standard market price table is a supplementary assessment method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencement of inheritance or when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of imposition of inheritance tax, and the supplementary assessment method was difficult to compute the market price, and the burden of proving the assertion that there was no supplementary assessment method shall be the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu862, Jun. 23, 1987). According to the records, the defendant, who is the tax authority, claims that the property was appraised at the time of the original adjudication according to the rate method, because it does not fall under any of the cases of general rules 39, 9, and 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and there is no other evidence that can find it difficult to calculate the market price.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case, which assessed inherited property in accordance with the method of specific multiple factors on the premise that it is difficult to calculate the market price of the above inherited property, was justifiable. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of proof of the "a circumstance for which it is difficult to calculate the market price," which affected

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)