A. The purport of Article 8-2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990), which prescribes whether the property contributed to the public service is included in the taxable value of the property contributed to the public service

B. Whether Article 3-2 (7) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

A. Article 8-2 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that with respect to property contributed to a public project in order to prevent abuse of it as a means of tax evasion or a means of increase of father by prior to a public project and by making an altered contribution to property, the said property shall not be counted as a policy on the taxable value of inherited property on the condition that the person who received the contribution should use it for the purpose of contribution.

B. Where Article 3-2 (7) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) delegated by the above Paragraph (a) of the same Article uses the contributed property for profit-making or profit-making purposes, it shall not be deemed as violating the principle of no taxation without the law, on the grounds that the specific scope of taxable objects is determined to determine which degree of income from the operation of the contributed property is not used directly for public interest purposes.

Article 8-2 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 3-2 (7) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu355 decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong1987,549). 91Nu9046 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong192,1068)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14888 delivered on January 2, 201

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu9185 delivered on October 20, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Article 8-2 (4) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that if a person who received a contribution of property not included in the taxable value of inherited property pursuant to paragraph (1) 1 uses the property for any purpose other than the purpose of contribution or for the purpose of contribution, the person who received the contribution shall be deemed to have received the contribution of the property under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the gift tax shall be levied immediately on the person who received the contribution. Thus, with respect to the property contributed to a public project in order to prevent the abuse of the property as a means of tax evasion or for the purpose of increasing division through a prior and variable property contribution, the property shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property under the condition that the person who received the contribution is to use it for the purpose of contribution. Article 3-2 (7) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that the above provision shall not be applied to the extent of taxation without 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)