Scope of funeral discussions under Article 1008 of the Civil Act, which are not included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes.

Article 108-3 of the Civil Code, which is not included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, refers only to cases where the farmland has already been used as a tombto at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and even if the farmland which was not used as the original tombto, was determined to be used as a tombto under the consultation of the inheritor after the commencement of the inheritance, it does not constitute a non-taxation under the above provisions of the

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

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

On December 30, 1991, Nonparty 31.1%, Nonparty 24.3%, Nonparty 11.8%, Nonparty west ○○○, Nonparty 16.8%, and Nonparty west ○○○ succeeded to the possession ratio of 16%, and Nonparty 16%, among inherited property, Nonparty 2,984 square meters (600 square meters) out of the inherited property of Daejeon ○○-dong 375-1 and 2,92 square meters (60 square meters) as a funeral soil for the deceased.

On December 2, 1993, the defendant did not exclude the above cemetery farmland from the taxable value of inherited property of the deceased, and decided to impose inheritance tax with the total amount of 244,531,740 won as shown in the attached Form as to the land and building, which are inherited property of the deceased, and notified the plaintiff of the disposition of this case to notify the plaintiff, who is the person who submitted the report on inheritance pursuant to Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (after that, on January 1, 1994, the defendant issued a decision of correction to reduce the above tax amount of 222,852,601 won on the ground of an erroneous calculation of the amount of deduction for inheritance of the house, but

(Ma)

Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, 3 through 10, evidence No. 1 to 4, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 3-2, witness No. 1, 3-2, and the purport prior to pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition under the Inheritance Tax Act, the plaintiff asserts that the value equivalent to the above cemetery in the disposition of this case should not be included in the taxable value of inherited property, but it is unlawful to calculate the inheritance tax amount by including it in the calculation

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 8-2 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax Act stipulates that the value of the property stipulated in Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act shall not be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act lists farmland within 600 square meters as one of them.

B. Determination

Article 108-3 of the Civil Act, which is not included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 8-2 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, refers to only where the farmland is already used as a tombto at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and even if the farmland which was not used as the tombto originally was determined to be used as a tombto under the agreement of the inheritor after the commencement of inheritance, it should be interpreted that it does not constitute a non-taxation under the above provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act. This is because the duty to pay inheritance tax is established at the time of the death of the decedent (Article 21 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). It should be determined at the time of the commencement of inheritance as of whether it is subject to inheritance tax (Article 21 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In addition, if the above provisions are not interpreted as above and interpreted as the plaintiff's assertion,

Therefore, in imposing the disposition of this case, it is justifiable to calculate the amount of inheritance tax without excluding the portion of farmland of this case, which the heir, including the plaintiff, determined to use as a grave soil for the deceased, from the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and further, no illegality exists even if examining the disposition of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the part concerning the taxable value of the above cemetery in the disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case is illegal, is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.