A. In a case where the remaining inheritors filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance after the statutory period has expired due to the neglect to inherit all of the inherited property to one of the co-inheritors, whether the agreement division regarding the inherited property should be deemed an establishment (affirmative)

B. Where it appears that consultation such as the above "A" has been made with respect to inherited property, the division of the whole price of the real estate disposed of before the birth of the decedent, which is included in the taxable value pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act, is included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes for the above one (affirmative)

A. As a matter of course, the report on the renunciation of inheritance made by the remaining inheritors to one of the co-inheritors after the statutory period has expired, even if the effect as the renunciation of inheritance takes place, it shall be deemed that the above one of the co-inheritors acquired the entire inherited property in excess of the unique statutory inheritance portion and the above remaining inheritors did not acquire it entirely.

B. The value of the real estate disposed of by the decedent before his birth is merely that is included in the taxable value of the inherited property at the stage of calculating the taxable value of the inherited property under a certain condition pursuant to Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be the subject of specific consultation and division among the co-inheritors. Thus, where it is deemed that consultation and division such as Paragraph A with respect to the inherited property has been made with respect to the inherited property, the entire amount of the real estate disposed of by the decedent before his birth is included in the taxable value of the inherited property for the above one person

(a)Article 105, Article 138, Article 1013, Article 1015 and Article 1019(b) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9305 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1415)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu12171 delivered on June 13, 1990

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9305 Decided September 12, 1989

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal (the supplementary statement in the grounds of appeal is to the extent of supplement) is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the non-party 1 died on October 22, 1984 and the non-party 2, etc., who are children, jointly succeeded to the property; (b) the remaining inheritors except the plaintiff, who reported the renunciation of inheritance to the Seoul Family Court on October 2, 1985, as a means to inherit the entire inherited property of the deceased to the plaintiff; and (c) although the above declaration of renunciation of inheritance was made after the legal period, the above declaration of renunciation of inheritance does not take effect as a waiver of inheritance, it shall be deemed that the above co-inheritors acquired the entire inherited property in excess of the original statutory inheritance and the above remaining inheritors did not acquire it entirely; and (d) the plaintiff's acquisition of the entire inherited property through the above consultation division shall be deemed to have been directly acquired from the decedent at the time of the commencement of inheritance, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was legitimate.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding party members, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or erroneous interpretation of the party's expression of intent as pointed out in the lawsuit.

In addition, since the above deceased non-party 1's compensation for the real estate disposed of before the birth is merely included in the taxable value of the inherited property at the stage of calculating the taxable value of the inherited property under a certain condition pursuant to Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, it cannot be subject to specific consultation among the co-inheritors. As seen earlier, in this case where the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 et al. showed that a consultation division was made with respect to the inherited property with the purport that the plaintiff would acquire the entire inherited property between the plaintiff and the above non-party 7 et al. and the above non-party 2 et al. would not acquire it entirely, the judgment of the court below which held that the judgment of the court below that the amount included in the taxable value of the real estate that the above non-party 1 disposed of before the birth is justifiable, and that the judgment of the court below is justified, and that there is no other opinion.

All arguments are without merit.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land and the above ground buildings included in the inherited property of this case by the defendant based on its macroficial evidence were jointly inherited by the non-party 4, etc., who was originally owned by the non-party 3, who is the property inheritor due to his death, and according to the circumstances on March 20, 1979, the above inheritor was entrusted with the above non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's predecessor, and the above real estate cannot be deemed as the inherited property subject to taxation of this case because it does not belong to the actual ownership of the deceased. In comparison with the records, the court below's above evidence preparation and fact-finding are justified, and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the facts due to failing to exhaust all deliberation. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)