Whether the purpose of Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) and the total amount of the disposition or the total amount of the liabilities are at least 50,000 won prescribed in the same provision, the part which fails to prove double use shall be included in the taxable value (affirmative)

The purport of the provision of Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) is that in cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, the disposal price or loan money is likely to facilitate the disclosure of taxation data to his heir by donation or inheritance in cash that it is not easy for him to use taxation data, and thus, in order to prevent this, unless the taxpayer recognizes the conversion of the burden of proof and fails to prove the disposal price or the purpose of the loan money, it shall be deemed to have received cash inheritance, and it shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and it shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax if the taxpayer does not prove the disposal price or the purpose of the loan money. However, it is clear in light of the language and purport of the above provision that if the above disposal price or the total amount of debt exceeds 50,000 won, it shall be included in the taxable amount of double use.

Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu575 delivered on February 21, 1992

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's attorney and the ground of appeal by the defendant performer

Examining the record, we affirm the fact-finding by the court below on the existence and use of each of the obligations of this case against the deceased non-party in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the arguments.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 (No. 2) of the Plaintiff’s attorney

The purport of Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) is that, in cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, it is apprehended that the disposal price or loan money will be included in the taxable value of inheritance by donation or inheritance to the heir in cash where it is not easy to disclose the taxation data, so long as the taxpayer recognizes the conversion of the burden of proof and fails to prove the disposal price or the purpose of the loan money, it shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax by recognizing the conversion of the burden of proof, and if the taxpayer fails to prove the disposal price or the purpose of the loan money, it shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax by deeming that the taxpayer has received cash inheritance, but it is very difficult and difficult to request the taxpayer to disclose the purpose thereof only within a certain limit. Therefore, if the above disposal price or the total amount of debt exceeds 50,000 won, it is clear in light of the text or purport of the above provision.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and otherwise, the theory that the above part is included in the taxable value of at least 50 million won cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

3. The appeal is without merit, and all costs of appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)