(a) The meaning of value at the time of imposing inheritance tax under Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988), which becomes the point of time of appraising the value of inherited property, and the point of time when taxation data are not sent to the competent tax authority;

(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of receiving a death report on the decedent was the case where the tax authority had known that the decedent had inherited property;

A. "Value at the time of imposing inheritance tax" under Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) means the value at the time of imposing inheritance tax, not at the time of arbitrary selection according to the convenience of imposing inheritance tax within the exclusion period, but at the time when the tax authority can impose inheritance tax with the knowledge of the existence of inherited property by the tax authority. In this context, the "date the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of inherited property" refers to the date on which the tax authority receives taxation data that the tax authority recognizes the existence of inherited property as inherited property in principle. However, if the taxation data are not sent to the competent tax authority because it does not properly comply with the laws and regulations governing the collection and procedure of taxation data or the guidelines for internal business operations within the national tax administrative agency, it is reasonable to view the taxation data as the date on which the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of inherited property in view of the legislative intent of the Inheritance Tax Act, the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 15, 18 (1) and 19

B. The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the tax office, on December 10, 1984, should have designated a person in charge of investigation immediately pursuant to Article 35 (1) 1, 36, and 37 (1) of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax, which is a direction of the National Tax Service, as the market in receipt of a death report for the decedent, and Article 22 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Articles 7 and 8 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, of the Inheritance Tax Act, notified the head of the competent tax office of the commencement of inheritance tax, which is an inheritance tax assessment data, by the 10th day of November 29, 1984.

(a)(a) Articles 15, 18(1), and 19(b) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022, Dec. 26, 198); Article 22 of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Articles 7 and 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; Article 35(1)1, 36, and 37(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2956 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 256) 91Nu4348 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 148) 90Nu4280 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 344)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11808 delivered on July 11, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below presumed that "the date when the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of inherited property subject to the imposition of inheritance tax" as stipulated in Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act refers to the date when the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of inherited property subject to the imposition of inheritance tax, and "the date the inherited property has become aware of the inherited property" refers to the specific identification of inherited property subject to the imposition of inheritance tax. After the death of the decedent on June 1, 1984, the plaintiffs reported the death of the above deceased to the head of the competent tax office on November 29 of the same year. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the above Ansan market notified the death report to the head of the competent tax office within a fixed period of time, and even if the above domestic Ansan market notifies the head of the competent tax office of the fact that the inheritance tax was the commencement or cause of the above death, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the inherited property was inherited property on December 10, 1984.

(2) However, the value at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax under Article 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988) shall be interpreted not to mean the value at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax, but to mean the value at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax, knowing that the tax authority has inherited property, while the tax authority is aware of the existence of inherited property (see Articles 90Nu6187, Nov. 9, 190; 90Nu2956, Nov. 27, 1990; 91Nu4348, Nov. 12, 1991; 91Nu4348, Nov. 26, 198). In principle, the tax authority's notice of the existence of inherited property means the date on which the tax authority receives the inheritance tax by deeming it to be an inherited property, and Article 19 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22 through 248 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Articles 7 and 8 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, the head of the competent tax office notified the defendant, who is the head of the competent tax office, of the above commencement data, the inheritance tax assessment data by November 29, 1984, and the defendant shall be deemed to have designated and investigated a person in charge of investigation immediately pursuant to Article 35 (1) 1, 36, and 37 (1) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, which is the instructions of the National Tax Service, on the ground that the defendant, who is the competent tax office, was aware of the existence of the inherited property on December 10, 1984, shall be deemed to have been able to impose the inheritance tax. Accordingly, the value of the inherited property of this case shall be assessed on the basis of such notification.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the disposition of this case which assessed the value on the basis of the date on which the information on the tax evasion of inheritance was received without evaluating its value on this basis is due to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the concept at the time of the imposition of inheritance tax, and this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect and it is therefore justified.

(3) Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)