Appropriateness of the disposition of donated property, including the value of inherited property, within three years;

Provision that the value of donated property shall be excluded from the value of inherited property shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes because the property repaid with self-farmland under the Inheritance Tax Adjustment Act is not included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and it shall include the amount of reduction or exemption for farmland donated within three years from the commencement of inheritance.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

원고들의 아버지인 소외 망 안ㅇㅇ으로부터 1987. 10. 5. 에 원고 안ㅇㅇ은 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 372 답 2,810평방미터 및 같은 동 394 전 3,607평방미터를 증여받고 1988. 3. 증여세 신고시에 위 원고가 농민이라 하여 조세감면규제법 제67조의 7 의 규정에 의하여 증여세 면제신고를 하였고, 원고 안ㅇㅇ복은 같은 동 산 27 임야 8,809평방미터를, 원고 안ㅇㅇ은 같은 동 373의 2 전 1,471평방미터를 각 증여받고 증여세를 각 자진신고납부한 후, 원고들의 피상속인인 위 망인이 1989. 4. 25. 사망한 사실에 대하여, 피고는 위 각 증여부동산은 피상속인의 사망 3년 전에 증여한 것으로서 이를 모두 상속재산에 포함시켜 상속세 과세표준을 산출하는 한편, 상속재산의 평가시점을 상속세의 부과당시인 1991. 6. 28.로 하여 산출한 상속세 합계 금153,274,290원 및 방위세 금25,523,710원의 부과처분을 하였다가, 원고의 심사청구에 따른 1992. 4. 24. 자 국세청장의 심사결정에 의하여 피고가 상속재산의 평가시점이 잘못되었다는 이유로 피고가 상속재산을 안 날인 1990. 6. 26.을 기준으로 하여 별지 세액산출근거의 기재와 같이 상속세 금15,483,897원 및 방위세 금2,580,649원을 산출하여 1992. 5. 20.자로 감액경정하고 원고들에게 이를 고지한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 을제1호증의 2와 을제3호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고가 위와 같이 산출한 상속세 등의 총세액을 상속세법 제 18조 제 1항 에 의하여 원고들이 각자가 받은 재산의 점유비율에 따른 별지제2 상속인별지분율에 의하여 별지제3 상속세 안분계산의 기재와 같이 산출하여 원고들에 대한 각 상속세 및 방위세는 별지제1 개인별 과세내역의 각 금액으로 부과한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the legislative intent of Article 4 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) is to prevent unfair reduction of inheritance tax, etc. through donation, etc., and it does not purport to include the property exempted from gift tax in the inherited property pursuant to Article 67-7 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451, Dec. 27, 1991) for the prevention of rural communities, and therefore, it is unlawful to include the property exempted from gift tax in the inherited property. Second, even if the property exempted from gift tax is added to the taxable value of inherited property, it is against the principle of good faith that the defendant's disposition of imposition of gift tax in this case is unlawful.

Therefore, under Article 67-7 (1) 1 of the former Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 191), Article 11-3 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act as to the plaintiffs' first assertion, where a person who owned farmland of 9,000 square meters or less, which is subject to farmland tax under the Local Tax Act, donates to a self-employed farmer who is his lineal descendant until December 31, 1991, he shall be exempted from gift tax on the value of the farmland, etc. Meanwhile, Article 4 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that if a decedent has a domicile in Korea, the heir shall be exempted from gift tax exemption and exemption from inheritance tax, and the heir shall not be exempt from inheritance tax exemption and exemption from inheritance tax exemption and exemption from inheritance tax exemption and exemption from inheritance tax. This conclusion is without merit.

Next, according to Article 11 (1) 2 and 3 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the amount to be deducted pursuant to paragraph (1) of the same Article shall not exceed the remaining amount after deducting the value of the gift added to inherited property pursuant to Article 4 from the taxable value of the inherited property. Meanwhile, according to Article 11-3 (1) 1 of the same Act, where inheritance commences, the remaining amount of the inherited property of the decedent prescribed by the Presidential Decree (as delegated, a person who resides in the Si/Eup/Myeon, or resides in an area adjacent to his/her area and engages in agriculture continuously for two years from the commencement date of inheritance) shall be included in the value of the inherited property of the decedent at the time of commencement of inheritance, 10 million won, and 100,000 won for minors among heirs, and the value of the inherited property at the time of inheritance under paragraph (3) of the same Article shall not exceed the remaining amount after deducting the value of the gift added to inherited property pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article.

However, if the whole purport of the argument appears in the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant assessed the inherited property on Jun. 26, 1990 at the time of the above reduction or correction as the standard market price publicly announced on Mar. 15, 199 and calculated the amount of the inheritance tax of this case after evaluating the inherited property according to the standard market price publicly announced on Mar. 15, 1989. However, even if the defendant erred in the point of time of the evaluation of inherited property, the same standard market price as of Apr. 25, 1989, which was the commencement date of the inheritance, is applied, so the appraised value of the inherited property is equal to the appraised value based on the commencement date of inheritance, and therefore, the inheritance tax amount is not different. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' above assertion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as the above inheritance tax, against the plaintiffs, is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.