Land assessment method at the time inheritance commences;

If no example of transaction of similar real estate is found, it shall be calculated according to the officially assessed individual land price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

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

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition of this case;

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-1, and Eul evidence 2-5, and there is no counter-proof.

가. 원고들은 1990. 11. 20. 원고 문ㅇㅇ의 남편이자 나머지 원고들의 아버지인 소외 망 박ㅇㅇ의 사망으로 별지목록 1내지8기재부동산(이하 이 사건 상속재산이라 한다)을 상속받고도, 법정신고기한내에 상속세 과세표준 및 세액의 신고를 하지 아니하였다.

B. On January 3, 1992, the defendant added 9,167,184 won to the plaintiffs according to the officially assessed individual land price at the time of commencing the inheritance, and deducted funeral expenses and debts. After deducting the corresponding amount of the basic deduction, personal deductions, housing and farmland inheritance deduction, the appraised value according to the publicly assessed individual land price at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, and 279,523,560 won to the increased amount of various deductions calculated according to the difference as the inherited property value at the time of commencing the inheritance, and 228,705,864 won to be deducted from the tax base pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and to impose an inheritance tax of KRW 77,154,510 (including additional tax due to bad faith), defense tax of KRW 12,835,020 calculated based on such difference.

C. However, in this case, as long as the valuation of inherited property was based on the officially assessed individual land price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance rather than on the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax, the valuation was based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax. Thus, it was pointed out that the above amount under Article 9(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act was erroneously applied even though there is no room for application of Article 9(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act. The above amount was excluded from the deduction, and the tax base was increased to KRW 508,229,424, and the tax base was increased to KRW 143,374,950, KRW 23,895,820 as of December 16, 192, the tax base was additionally imposed and collected until the payment period until December 31, 192.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act as of May 1, 1990 provides that the inheritance commences before December 31, 1990 in the assessment of the value of the inherited land and the reporting period is based on the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act according to the provisions of the revised Local Tax Act, and that the non-reported property is based on the publicly assessed individual land price pursuant to the provisions of the amended Act. If so, depending on whether to report, and whether to commence the inheritance in 1990, and whether to commence the next year, the above Addenda Paragraph 2 is null and void in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, equality, proportionality, and property rights guarantee. Accordingly, even if a report is not filed, the market price of the inherited property should be calculated based on the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act, such as the case where the inheritance is reported before December 31, 199. Therefore, it is unlawful to evaluate the value of the inherited property by the publicly assessed individual land price of this case.

Second, Article 5 (2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is a supplementary method for calculating the market price of inherited property only when it is difficult to calculate the market price of inherited property, but the defendant was illegal without making any effort to calculate the market price of the inherited property in this case.

B. Determination

First of all, even if the inheritance commenced before December 31, 1990 and the supplementary method of appraisal differs depending on whether or not the report was made within the report period, the supplementary method of appraisal stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree at the time of the amendment of the Enforcement Decree on May 1, 1990, and the supplementary method of appraisal is determined differently depending on whether or not the report was made, as long as Article 1 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree provides that the report shall enter into force on the date of promulgation, it shall not be deemed disadvantageous or unreasonable to the taxpayer, and it shall not be deemed as contrary to the principle of the plaintiff's proposal, such as the no taxation without law, etc., in light of the fact that Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides the report obligation

다음 시행령 제5조 제2항 내지 제5항의 규정에 의한 상속재산의 평가는 시가를 산정하기 어려운 때에 한하여 비로소 택할 수 있는 보충적인 평가방법인 점은 원고주장과 같다. 그러나 한편 증인 이ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 당시 이 사건 상속재산의 조사공무원이던 소외 이ㅇㅇ은 이 사건 상속재산의 시가를 조사한 결과 상속개시일 전후 6개월이내의 매매가격, 감정가액, 보상가액등 객관적이고 합리적인 방법에 의한 시가를 발견할 수 없었을 뿐 아니라 인근 유사부동산의 거래실례를 찾지 못하여 부득이 개별공시지가에 의하여 상속재산을 평가하게된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없다.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the defendant to calculate the value assessment of land among the inherited property of this case according to the officially assessed individual land price at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and if it is so long as the assessed value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, not at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, or if it is not reported within the statutory period, the assessed value of the inherited property is larger than the market value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In this case, there is no room to apply Article 9 (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act (Article 9 (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which provides that the difference shall be deducted from the taxable value as of December 31, 1990, which provides that the amount calculated by multiplying the difference by the ratio of the amount of basic deduction, personal deductions, inheritance deduction of the house, farmland, etc. at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be deducted from the taxable value, and there

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for rescission of this case on the premise that the disposition of this case is unreasonable, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

October 27, 1993