The purport of Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990), and whether the above provision shall apply to cases where the taxpayer proves that the taxpayer set up a collateral security at the highest amount of secured claim the amount higher than the actual value of inherited property (negative)

Article 9(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) provide for the purpose of calculating an amount close to the market price by supplementing Article 9(1) of the same Act, which provides for the principle of market value, with respect to the evaluation of the value of inherited property. In cases of establishing a right to collateral, the maximum amount of secured claims can be determined within the scope of the ordinary property value. Thus, if the maximum amount of secured claims exceeds the amount calculated by other methods, it is reasonable to view the actual amount of secured claims as the actual value of the property as the maximum amount of secured claims, in exceptional cases where a person liable for duty payment establishes a right to collateral security with the amount higher than the actual value of the property as the maximum amount of secured claims, it may be relieved from the application of

Article 9 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Liability for Proof]

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7481 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1006) 90Nu2390 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1614) 91Nu12585 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2433) 86Nu536 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1250) 87Nu354 delivered on July 21, 1987 (repealed) 87Nu934 delivered on December 13, 198(Gong1989, 19840)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Donggsan Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu2109 delivered on January 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 9(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 5-2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990) provide for the purpose of calculating the value close to the market price by supplementing the provision of Article 9(1) of the same Act that provides for the market price principle with respect to the evaluation of the value of inherited property. In cases of establishing a right to collateral with respect to any property, the maximum amount of the secured claim shall be determined within the real price of the property in general. Thus, if the maximum amount of the secured claim of the right to collateral is greater than the price calculated by other methods, it is reasonable to view it as the real price of the property as the actual amount of the secured claim. Thus, in exceptional cases where the secured claim is set at the maximum amount of the secured claim, it shall be deemed that the taxpayer can escape from the application of the above provision by proving such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu6989, Mar. 29, 20989, 1907.

The dissenting opinion is to be discarded in the following cases: 86Nu536 delivered on June 23, 1987, 87Nu354 delivered on July 21, 1987, and 87Nu934 delivered on December 13, 198, etc.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that since the maximum amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security against the ship No. 1 in this case is determined as much as the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance in this case, the value of the above ship's inherited property should be deemed the market price at the market price. There is no error of law

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Justice) Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Justice) Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice), Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice), Park Jong-ho, Kim Jong