Whether the supplementary evaluation methods of unlisted stocks, which are inherited property, are appropriate

The defendant's initial disposition is most legitimate, but the total estimated amount of retirement allowances must be deducted from assets as fixed liabilities, but the amount calculated by subtracting only the amount equivalent to 50/100 of such estimated amount as fixed liabilities from fixed liabilities is not delegated by the enforcement rules concerned, so it is illegal.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part of the disposition imposing inheritance tax and defense tax against the plaintiffs as of October 1, 1991, which exceeds the part of the amount stated in the annexed sheet 2 (the recognized amount) among the amounts stated in the annexed sheet 1 (amount imposed) by the defendant against the plaintiffs as of October 1, 1991.

1. Details of the imposition;

원고 류ㅇ하는 소외 류ㅇㅇ의 장남, 황ㅇㅇ 동 처, 류ㅇ하는 동 차남, 류ㅇ수는 동 혼인하지 아니한 3녀, 류ㅇ주, 류ㅇ미는 동 혼인한 1, 2녀로서 위 류ㅇㅇ이 1989. 11.27. 사망하여 동인의 별지3(상속재산 및 가액) 상속재산란 기재 재산을 별지1(부과금액) 상속지분란 기재 각 지분으로 공동상속 받고 1990.5.26.자로 위 상속재산에 대하여 상속세와 방위세를 신고한 사실, 피고는 1991.10.1. 상속재산의 가액을 원고들의 신고와 달리 평가하는 한편 원고들이 신고한 상속재산 외에 상속세법 제7조의2에 의한 상속재산 가산액을 별도로 인정하여 원고들에 대한 상속세 합계 금 1,223,870,310원, 방위세 합계 금 223,118,080원을 상속지분의 비율에 따라 부과하였다가 원고들의 심사청구에 의한 국세청장의 1992.1.10.자 심사결정 취지에 따라 1992.1. 말경 위 세액을 상속세 합계 금 1,123,902,280원, 방위세 합계 금 216,585,540원으로 상속지분의 비율에 따라 감액 경정하고, 다시 원고들의 심판청구에 의한 국세심판소의 1992.5.29.자 심판결정의 취지에 따라 1992.6.30. 상속세 합계 금 1,009,567,079원, 방위세 합계 금 197,643,266원을 상속지분의 비율에 따라 원고별로 위 별지1 기재 금액으로 감액 경정하여 결과적으로 위 1991.10.1.자 당초의 처분은 원고들에 대하여 별지1 기재 금액부분(이하 이 사건 처분이라 한다)이 남게 된 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. Whether the appraisal of value of inherited land and building is lawful;

가. 을 제1호증의 3, 을 제3호증 10의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 위 별지3 상속재산란 제1기재 토지 및 건물에 관하여는 상속개시 당시 1987.6.10.자로 소외 ㅇㅇ산업 주식회사를 채무자로 하고 채권최고액을 금 270,000,000원으로 하는 공동근저당권이 설정되어 있는 사실, 피고는 위 토지 및 건물의 상속개시 당시 가액을 평가함에 있어 기준시가보다 이들을 공동담보로 하는 위 채권최고액이 더 많으므로 상속세법 제9조 제4항(1990.12.31. 법률 제4283호로 개정되기 전의 것), 동법시행령 제5조의2 제3호(1990. 12. 31. 대통령령 제13196호로 개정되기 전의 것)에 의하여 기준시가가 아닌 위 채권최고액을 위 토지 및 건물의 가액으로 평가한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 원고들은, 위 시행령 제5조의2 제3호의 규정은 위 법률 제9조 제4항의 위임에 의하여 위 조항 소정의 대통령령이 정하는 바에 따라 평가한 가액을 규정함에 있어 위임의 범위와 한계를 벗어나 무효이므로 위 무효의 시행령 규정에 의하여 자산가액을 평가한 피고의 조치는 부적법하다고 주장한다.

Therefore, Article 9 (4) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of inherited property on which a mortgage or a pledge is created shall be the value of the property, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, which is the larger of the appraised value as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and according to the provision of subparagraph 3 of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act based on the above provision, the value assessed as prescribed by the Presidential Decree refers to the maximum amount of the claim secured by the property in the case of the property on which the right to collateral is established. In the case of establishing a right to collateral security, it is reasonable to determine the maximum amount of the secured claim within the real value of the ordinary property. Thus, if the maximum amount of the secured claim is greater than the value calculated by the method as prescribed by Article 9 (1) of the above Enforcement Decree, it is consistent with the actual value of the above transaction. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provision goes beyond the scope of delegation and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion

B. The plaintiffs also claim that the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the above land and building should be deducted from the value of inherited property pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act. However, in the case where the third party is the principal debtor and the inheritee is merely a surety to secure another's property, the principal debtor shall not be able to perform his/her obligations because of the insolvent condition of the debtor, and even if the principal debtor exercises his/her right to demand reimbursement against the principal debtor, the amount of his/her obligations shall be deducted from the value of inherited property, unless there are special circumstances that make it impossible for the debtor to perform his/her obligations. (See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12585 delivered on July 10, 192)

3. Whether the evaluation of inherited shares is lawful;

A. Whether it is difficult to compute the market price

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

피고가 위 상속재산 중의 하나인 ㅇㅇ물산 주식회사의 주식가액을 상속세법 제9조 제1항에 의하여 평가함에 있어 소외 회사의 주식은 비상장주식으로서 매매의 실례가 없어 동법시행령 제5조 제1항(1990.12.31. 대통령령 제13196호로 개정되기 전의 것) 단서 소정의 시가를 산정하기 어려울 때에 해당한다고 보아 같은 조 제5항 제1호 (나)목의 방법에 따라 1주당 가액을 금 13,912원으로 평가한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는바, 원고들은, 소외 회사의 주식은 상속개시 후 1주당 금 10,000원으로 매매된 실례가 있으므로 위 매매가격을 위 주식의 시가로 보아야 함에도 불구하고 피고가 위 시가에 의하지 아니하고 위와 같은 보충적 평가방법에 의하여 위 주식의 가액을 평가한 것은 부적법하다고 주장한다.

(2) Provisions of the statute

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993): The value of inherited property shall be based on the current status as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990): The value of Article 9 of the Act according to the current status at the time of commencement of the inheritance shall be based on the current market price at that time, but if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be based on

Article 5 (5) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190): Subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Article (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190): The appraisal of stocks not listed on the Stock Exchange shall be based on the following formula

Price per stock = (The rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in consideration of the weighted average amount of net profit and loss per stock in the last three years + the total amount of stocks issued by the relevant corporation + the interest rate per stock with a maturity of one year) ¡

(3) Determination

그러므로 살피건대, 위 시행령 제5조 제1항에서 말하는 시가라 함은 원칙적으로 불특정 다수인간의 자유롭고 정상적인 거래에 의하여 형성된 객관적인 교환가격을 의미하는 것이므로 비상장주식이라고 하더라도 그와 같이 객관적인 교환가치가 적정하게 반영된 정상적인 거래의 실례가 있으면 그 거래가격을 시가로 보아 주식의 가액을 평가하여야 할 것이다. 갑 제6호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 상속개시 당시 소외 회사의 주식은 총 282,500주로서 위 주식 중 위 류ㅇ청이 101,700주, 소외 류ㅇ우가 70,625주, 소외 ㅇㅇ연탄 주식회사가 98,875주를 각 소유하고 있었는데, 상속개시 후 1990.5.11.경 위 류ㅇ우의 주식을 원고 류ㅇ하가 28,250주, 위 ㅇㅇ연탄이 42,375주 각 매수하였고, 다시 같은 해 9.21.경 원고들의 주식 122,759주를 위 ㅇㅇ연탄이 매수한 사실 및 위 각 매매계약의 매매계약서상 위 주식의 매매대금은 1주당 액면가액인 금 10,000원으로 기재되어 있는 사실은 인정할 수 있다. 그러나, 한편 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 을 제5호증의 1 내지 5의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 원고들은 당초 상속재산을 신고하면서 스스로 위와 같은 보충적 평가방법에 따라 1주당 가액을 금 15,480원으로 신고하였을 뿐 아니라 위 ㅇㅇ연탄의 장부에 기재된 위 주식대금은 위 매매계약서상의 대금과 다른 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 위와 같은 점에 비추어 보면 위 각 매매계약서상의 매매대금을 매매당사자 사이의 실제 매매대금이라고 믿기 어렵고, 또한 위 매매당사자들은 모두 소외 회사의 대주주들로서 일반인과는 달리 소외 회사를 매개로 한 특별한 관계에 있다 할 것이므로 그들 사이의 매매를 불특정인 사이의 거래라고 보기도 어렵다 할 것이므로 위 매매계약서상의 매매대금을 객관적인 교환가치가 적정하게 반영된 정상적인 거래가액으로서의 시가라고 볼 수는 없다 할 것이다.(대법원 1990.7.10. 선고 90누1229 판결 참조)

Therefore, since there is no normal transaction value that can be recognized as the market price for the above shares, it is difficult to calculate the market price. Accordingly, the defendant's measures that evaluate the value of the above shares as a supplementary method is lawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Whether appraisal of the asset value of the non-party company is lawful

Although the Commission has to evaluate the value of the above shares by a supplementary method under the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the defendant has to make an excessive evaluation of the value of the assets of the non-party company, which serves as the basis for assessing the value of the above shares by a supplementary method, as follows, and eventually excessive evaluation of the value of the above shares, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(1) Whether evaluation is lawful based on the maximum debt amount

In full view of the statement No. 10 of the evidence No. 10, in assessing the asset value of the non-party company, the defendant claims that the assessment of the asset value of the non-party company under Article 9 (4) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 5-2 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 1990) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is equivalent to the standard market value of the non-party company's land owned by the non-party company, the mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed claim that the assessment amount exceeds the scope and limitation of delegation under the above provision of Article 9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, it is not necessary to examine the above plaintiff's assertion.

(2) Whether depreciation of structures, etc. is lawful

(A) The plaintiffs' assertion

According to the result of the accounting audit of the balance sheet of the non-party company in 1989, it was proved that the depreciation costs were reduced for the non-party company's assets, which are the assets of the non-party company. Thus, the defendant did not deduct the depreciation costs found to have been insufficiently appropriated as the result of the accounting audit in assessing the value of the above structure, although it was necessary to deduct the depreciation costs in assessing the value of the above structure, the non-party company's coal mine was not deducted, and the above lump sum depreciation costs were appropriated for the above structure due to the closure of light on May 30, 1992, and the above lump sum depreciation costs were found to have been insufficiently counted. Therefore, the above lump sum depreciation costs are the depreciation costs to be appropriated in the year 1989 separate from the depreciation costs recognized as the result of the accounting audit, and the above amount should be deducted additionally in assessing the value of

(B) Determination

그러므로 살피건대, 갑 제2호증, 을 제1호증의 7, 을 제9호증의 1 내지 4의 규정에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 소외 회사는 1989년 대차대조표 등의 재무제표를 작성하여 소외 ㅇㅇ회계법인의 회계감사를 받은 결과 구축물, 기계장치, 전기장치, 삭도시설, 통신시설, 공구와 기구, 비품에 대한 감가상각을 금 924,742,175원 만큼 과소계상하여 위 자산들의 가액이 그 만큼 과대평가되었다는 감사보고를 받은 사실, 피고는 위 구축물 등의 가액을 평가함에 있어 당초에는 위 감사보고된 과소계상 감가상각비를 고려하지 아니한 채 소외 회사 작성 대차대조표상의 가액을 그대로 위 구축물 등의 가액으로 인정하였으나 위와 같은 조치가 잘못되었다는 국세청장의 심사결정에 따라 피고는 이 사건 처분을 함에 있어서 위 구축물 등의 가액을 당초 소외 회사가 작성한 대차대조표상의 가액에서 과소계상되었다고 감사보고된 위 감가상각비 금 924,742,175원을 공제한 가액을 위 구축물 등의 가액으로 평가한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 위 회계감사결과 과소계상된 것으로 판명된 감가상각비를 공제하지 아니하였다는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

In addition, even if temporary depreciation costs were recognized for the above structure due to the mine closure as alleged by the plaintiffs, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been insufficiently appropriated as a result of the accounting audit conducted in the year 1989. Thus, in evaluating the value of the above structure, etc., if the above depreciation costs acknowledged as a result of the accounting audit were deducted as above, the defendant would legally deduct the depreciation costs. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that it is improper to additionally deduct some of the above temporary depreciation costs recognized as a result of the accounting audit conducted in the year 192 is unlawful.

(3) Whether the amount of retirement benefit estimated includes the liability

(A) The plaintiffs' assertion

In full view of the statement No. 1-7 of the evidence No. 1-7, the defendant evaluated the assets of the non-party company pursuant to Article 5 (5) 1 (c) of the above Enforcement Decree, and it can be recognized that only the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the estimated amount of retirement allowance to be paid when all employees employed by the non-party company as of the commencement date of the inheritance pursuant to Article 5 (3) 3 of the above Enforcement Decree of the above Act are included in the debt, as a matter of law, since the total estimated amount of retirement allowance must be included in the debt, the above Enforcement Rule No. 50/100 of the estimated amount of retirement allowance shall be included in the debt, and the disposition of this case shall be null and void

(B) Determination

According to Article 5 (5) 1 (c) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082, Dec. 31, 1993) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the net asset value of subparagraph (b) shall be calculated by deducting liabilities from the value appraised by this Decree as of the date the inheritance commences, as prescribed by this Decree. According to Article 5 (3) 3 (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1235, Feb. 23, 197) of the above Enforcement Rule, the liabilities provided for in Article 5 (5) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act shall include an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the estimated amount of retirement allowances to be paid if all employees employed as of the date the inheritance commences retire.

Therefore, the liabilities under the above Enforcement Decree refer to all liabilities included in the items of liabilities in the balance sheet, which are generally recognized as fair and reasonable, according to corporate accounting standards generally recognized, since the estimated amount of retirement allowances to be paid by all employees who hold office as of the date of accounting standards is included in the items of fixed liabilities as retirement allowances, the total estimated amount of retirement allowances shall be the liabilities under the above Enforcement Decree. (See Supreme Court Decision 79Nu312 delivered on Nov. 11, 1980, even though the provisions of the above Enforcement Rule are related to the issues before the enactment of the above Enforcement Rule.)

Therefore, limiting the scope of the above enforcement rule to 50/100 of the estimated amount of retirement allowance is to restrict the scope of the liabilities under the above enforcement decree without delegation of the law or the enforcement decree, and it is null and void in violation of the above enforcement decree, which is a superior law. Therefore, the defendant's measures under the above enforcement rule are unlawful, and the plaintiffs' above assertion is reasonable.

(4) Whether the allowances and retirement allowances are deducted

(A) The plaintiffs' assertion

을 제1호증의 7, 을 제6호증의 1의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 피고는 소외 회사의 순자산을 평가함에 있어 소외 회사의 1989년도 대차대조표상 부채항목에 계상된 단체퇴직급여충당금과 퇴직급여충당금, 산림훼손충당금 합계 금 3,559,122,011원을 부채항목에서 제외시켜 부채액을 산정한 사실을 인정할 있는바, 원고들은 위 충당금은 당연히 부채항목에 포함시켜야 함에도 불구하고 피고가 이를 부채항목에서 제외하였고, 또한 사망 당시 소외 회사의 대표이사였던 위 류ㅇㅇ이 사망으로 퇴직함으로써 지급받을 퇴직금 176,825,050원은 소외 회사의 순자산을 평가함에 있어 공제하여야 함에도 불구하고 피고가 이를 공제하지 아니하여 소외 회사의 순자산은 과대평가되어 위법하다고 주장한다.

(B) Determination

However, the collective retirement allowance and retirement allowance are the same in nature as the estimated amount of the above retirement allowance, and since the above deceased's retirement allowance are the amount to be paid from the estimated amount of the above retirement allowance, as seen above, as long as the estimated amount of the retirement allowance has already been included in the debt item, the above allowances or the deceased's retirement allowance shall not be appropriated in the debt item separately from the estimated amount of the above retirement allowance, and since the forest damage reserve does not constitute the liability under Article 5 (5) 1 (c) of the above Enforcement Decree, the defendant's measures are legitimate and the

4. The calculation of justifiable taxes; and

Therefore, after evaluating the net asset value of the non-party company by including the total estimated amount of the retirement allowance in the debt of the non-party company, the value of the inherited stocks is calculated again and the reasonable tax amount is calculated as follows.

The net asset value of the non-party company: 4,584,840,499 won, as stated in attached Table 4 (net asset value statement).

Value of inherited stocks: 1,041,306,300 won, such as entry in attached Table 5 (Account Statement)

전체상속재산가액：을 제4호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 위 망 류ㅇㅇ은 사망 5개월 전 무렵인 1989.6.30. 동인 소유의 소외 ㅇㅇ산업 주식회사의 주식 29,880주를 소외 김ㅇㅇ에게 금 298,800,000원에 매도하였으나 위 매도대금의 사용처가 확인되지 아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 위 주식매도대금을 상속세법 제7조의2 제1항(1990.12.31. 대통령령 제4283호로 개정되기 전의 것), 동법시행령 제3조 제3항 제4호에 의하여 상속재산의 가액에 산입하면 전체상속재산 가액은 위 별지3의 상속재산가액 합계란 기재와 같이 금 1,887,291,377원이 된다.

Justifiable inheritance tax and defense tax: 832,702,034, defense tax amount of KRW 160,627,174, as stated in attached Table 6 (tax invoice).

Amount of tax for each plaintiff: The amount of tax for each plaintiff shall be as shown in attached Form 2 (Amount recognized) if calculated in accordance with the inheritance shares.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs in the attached Form 2 shall be lawful, but since the part in excess of the above part shall be revoked, the plaintiffs' claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the above illegal part among the disposition of this case shall be revoked, and the remaining part shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.