Whether the amount guaranteed by the principal obligor is deducted from the value of the inherited property, where it has become impossible to exercise the right to indemnity against the principal obligor.

The obligation of an inheritee to be deducted from the value of inherited property pursuant to Articles 4(1)3 and 10(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act refers to the obligation of which payment is deemed certain at the time of the commencement of the inheritance at the time of the commencement of the inheritance to be made at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, if there are joint and several liability obligations or physical liability of a third person who bears the obligation of an inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and there are circumstances under which the principal obligor would not be effective even if he exercises his right to demand reimbursement after performing his obligation, the amount of such obligation shall be deducted from

Articles 4(1)3 and 10(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410 Decided December 13, 1983 85Nu760 Decided March 11, 1986

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs (Attorney Seo-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu297 delivered on December 5, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Pursuant to Articles 4(1)3 and 10(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the obligation of an amount deducted from the value of inherited property pursuant to the provision of Article 4(1)3 and 10(2) of the same Act refers to the obligation of which payment is deemed certain at the time of the commencement of the inheritance at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Therefore, if there are joint and several liability obligations for a third party, which are borne by an ancestor at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and there are circumstances under which the primary debtor is in an insolvent condition where the repayment is impossible, and there is no invalidation even after the execution of the obligation after the performance of the obligation, the amount of such obligation shall be deducted from the value of inherited property (see each of the Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu760, Mar. 11, 1986; 83Nu410, Dec.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, for the non-party 2's textile industry, the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 as well as the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 for the non-party 3's textile industry. The non-party 2 and the non-party 3 as a joint surety for the non-party 4's loans from the non-party 2's Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. as of December 2, 1983. The above non-party 2's loans to the non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 7's non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-6's non-6's properties.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the violation of the rules of evidence. The arguments are without merit.

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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)