(a) In cases where inherited property is sold and disposed of at least two years before the date inheritance commences and an intermediate payment or balance is received within the above two years, whether the amount received can be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes;

(b) Whether the taxpayer has the burden of proving the grounds that are not recoverable from the net asset value of the corporation when evaluating the value of unlisted stocks;

A. In cases where the disposal of inherited property was made by sale, even if the seller received the intermediate payment or the balance within two years before the date of commencing the inheritance, the amount equivalent to the above amount shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, even if the seller received the intermediate payment or the balance

B. In evaluating the value of the non-listed shares, which are inherited property, by virtue of Article 5(6)1(b) and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of commencing the inheritance, which is one of the factors for calculation, cannot be included in the net asset value of the relevant corporation at the time of commencing the inheritance. However, the impossibility of collecting claims falls under exceptional causes in determining the taxable amount of inheritance

(a) Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5 (6) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5 (6) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act ;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3185 decided Feb. 14, 1989 (Gong1989,433)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu29831 delivered on June 24, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by calculating by type of property and, in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree among those, the use of which is not clear, not less than 100,000,000 won, such amount shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. In cases where the above disposition was made by sale, if the purchaser receives the intermediate payment or the balance within two years prior to the commencement date of inheritance, it shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes even if the purchaser received it within the above two years (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3185, Feb. 14

In the same purport, we cannot accept the argument that the court below's inclusion of the balance amount from the sale of the real estate held by the defendant in the value of the inherited property is unlawful, and otherwise, it should be included in the value of the inherited property only in the proceeds received within 2 years of the commencement of inheritance

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In evaluating the value of unlisted stocks, which are inherited property, by accordance with Article 5 (6) 1 (b) and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of commencing the inheritance, which is one of the elements of calculation, cannot be included in the amount of accrued claims which are impossible to be recovered at the time of commencing the inheritance. However, since the impossibility of collecting claims falls under exceptional reasons in determining the amount of inheritance taxes, the burden of proof for

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the non-party company did not own real estate at the time of commencement of the inheritance on April 16, 1991 and reported the value of 1,200 won out of 5,00 won of the total outstanding shares of the non-party company 1,200 won, which is non-listed shares inherited, to 112,934,40 won as a result of the defendant's declaration. However, the non-party company discontinued its business on April 30, 1992 and was missing due to the non-party company's default on payment of value-added tax amount of 29,763,983 won. The non-party company did not own real estate at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and it did not have any net asset value of the non-party company at the time of commencement of the inheritance on the condition that it did not have any net asset value of 429,040,000 won (total net asset value of the non-party company 1,57010,1000,1000 won,400

However, if the asset value on the account book of the non-party company as of the commencement date of the inheritance is the same as determined by the court below, the financial status of the non-party company in which the business is in progress is changed from time to time due to external factors, such as its business performance and change in the market. Thus, only the data on the non-party company's default and closure that occurred after one year from the commencement date of the inheritance, and the tax authority's disposition on deficits after the commencement date of the inheritance, may not be presumed to be impossible to recover the credit sales claim amount of

Therefore, in calculating the net asset value of unlisted stocks, the court below erred by misapprehending the burden of proof of non-collection requirements or by violating the rule of experience in finding facts in the calculation of the net asset value of unlisted stocks (the judgment of the court below revoked the portion exceeding 253,340,342 won in relation to the disposition of this case in the disposition of this case, and the reasons therefor are as follows: (a) the court below revoked the portion exceeding 312,340,342 won as to the disposition of this case; (b) and thus, (c) the order and the reasons are inconsistent.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)