In case where the deposit and the withdrawal are continued within one year before the commencement date of the inheritance, there is the burden of proving that the method of calculating the disposal value to be included in the taxable value of the inheritance and the amount of the deposit are the amount created separately, regardless of the amount withdrawn (=

Article 15 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998) provides that where an ancestor disposes of the property of the ancestor or bears an obligation to the ancestor and the heir falls under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall be presumed that the heir inherited property is included in the taxable value of inherited property under Article 13, and where the amount received or withdrawn from the property of the ancestor is at least 200 million won by calculating it by kind of property within one year before the commencement date of inheritance, and the use thereof is objectively unclear as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 11 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15971 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that where the ancestor disposes of the property of the ancestor or bears an obligation to the ancestor, it shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property, the sum of money deposited within one year before the commencement date of inheritance and the amount of money deposited within one year before the inheritance date shall be excluded.

Articles 13 and 15(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 11(1)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15971 of Dec. 31, 1998)

Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5480 Decided December 23, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 266) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1232 Decided January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 481)

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu5632 delivered on January 29, 200

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 15 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998) provides that where an ancestor disposes of the property of the ancestor or bears an obligation, and the heir falls under any of the following subparagraphs, such amount shall be presumed to have been inherited, and where the amount received by the ancestor from the disposal of the property of the ancestor or withdrawn from the property of the ancestor is at least 200 million won by type of the property within one year before the commencement date of inheritance as prescribed in Article 13, and the use thereof is objectively unclear as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 11 (1) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15971 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that where the ancestor withdraws the property of the ancestor, such amount shall be calculated separately from the taxable value of inherited property within 15 years before the commencement date of inheritance, the amount of money withdrawn shall be excluded from the total amount of money deposited within one year before the inheritance date.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that there is no amount to be included in the taxable value of inherited property in relation to the amount of the deposit account of this case, since the amount deposited within one year from the commencement date of the inheritance of this case is more than the amount of 714,741,146 won deposited within the above deposit account by the deceased (the amount which is confirmed to be the amount created separately regardless of the withdrawal deposit, and the defendant does not prove additional amount because there is no amount created separately,) and therefore there is no amount to be included in the taxable value of inherited property in relation to the amount of the withdrawal of the deposit account of this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the method of calculating the disposal value to be included in the taxable value of inherited property in relation to the amount of the deposit and the withdrawal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-hoon (Presiding Justice)