A. Whether General Rule 399(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is an exemplary provision

B. The case holding that the assessment of the officially assessed individual land price and the assessment of the inheritance tax are unlawful on the ground that there was no proof that there was no choice to choose a supplementary assessment method;

A. Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the scope of the market price stipulated in the former part of Article 5(2) shall be deemed as an example of the representative cases that can be deemed as the market price of inherited property. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the market price is difficult to calculate merely because it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs.

B. The case holding that an inheritance tax imposition disposition calculated as a publicly assessed individual land price is unlawful on the ground that there was no separate proof on the ground that the assessment was conducted as a publicly assessed individual land price under Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act because it is difficult to calculate the market price.

(a)Article 5(1)(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 9(1) of the same Act; Article 5(2)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu584 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 172) 92Nu19323 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2452). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5795 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1531) 92Nu787 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1108), 92Nu16218 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2054)

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of Busan District Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu999 delivered on April 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the assessment of inherited property shall be conducted only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance or at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, and the burden of proving that the above supplementary assessment method was inevitable because it is difficult to compute the market price is established by the party member's establishment. Thus, each subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the defendant, who is the tax authority, has the burden of proving that the above supplementary assessment method had no choice but to choose because it is difficult to choose because it is difficult to calculate the market price. Thus, each subparagraph of Article 39, 9(1) of the General Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the scope that can be seen as the market price of the inherited property can be seen as the market price of the inherited property is merely an example of the representative cases that

According to the records, since the acquisition value reported by the plaintiff on the land of this case, which is inherited property, is reflected one year and six months prior to the commencement date of inheritance, the defendant does not fall under the case where the market value at the time of the commencement of inheritance under general rules 39, 9 (1) 2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, but it is argued that the value of the land of this case was assessed as the officially assessed land price under Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is the supplementary valuation method, because it is no longer possible to calculate the market value, and there was no separate proof as to the fact that the above supplementary valuation method had no choice but to choose because it is difficult to calculate the market value, it is reasonable to determine that the tax disposition of this case, which is assessed in accordance with the above supplementary valuation method, was illegal, and there is no reason to conclude that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the supplementary valuation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)