The method of calculating the amount of inheritance tax, where the inheritance was disposed of by the decedent within one year before the commencement date of the inheritance but was not reported.

The provisions of Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act purport that the total amount of the property disposed by an ancestor within one year retroactively from the date the inheritance commences shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes under Article 4 of the same Act. Therefore, even if an heir fails to report the disposal of the above real property in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the same Act, only the additional tax payment under Article 26 of the same Act is a matter, and there is no room for a problem of evaluating the value of the disposed real property at the time when the taxable value is imposed, pursuant to

Articles 7-2, 4, 9(2), 20, and 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu6551 delivered on January 25, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 19, 1983, Nonparty 1 disposed of inherited property by macro evidence and succeeded to the property of the above deceased as joint heir, and on May 30, 1983, the above deceased sold the real property owned by the above deceased to Nonparty 2 and other 3, etc. within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance. Upon filing a report on inherited property to impose inheritance tax, the plaintiffs omitted such report. The defendant confirmed that the disposal amount of the above real property was included in the taxable value of 460,000,000 won and disposed of the inheritance tax of this case. According to Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, if the deceased disposed of inherited property within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance, the court below rejected the determination that the amount should be calculated by calculating the value of the property within 50,000,000 won by category of the property and, if it is objectively clear that the value of the property is not included in the market value of the property under Article 14 of this case.

B. According to the purport of Articles 7-2, 4, 9(2), 20, and 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act, where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance, such amount shall be calculated by the type of property and at least 50,000,000 won, and the purpose of use is not objectively clear, if determined by the President, it shall be included in the taxable value under Article 4 (Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (Article 7-2(1) of the same Act). Thus, it can be viewed that the purport that the amount of the disposal by an ancestor within one year retroactively from the commencement date of inheritance should be included in the taxable value under Article 4 of the same Act, even if the heir did not report the disposal of the above real property pursuant to the provisions of Article 20 of the same Act, there is no possibility of a problem of evaluating the value of the disposed real property at the time of imposing the taxable value (However, it is only a problem of additional tax payment under Article 26(26)

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the above purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Articles 7-2 and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the general rules of the Inheritance Tax Act are only the guidelines for administrative affairs inside the national tax agency, and as pointed out in the absence of legal binding power against the court or the citizens, the court below did not consider them and did not determine and apply it as a legally binding force. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the general rules of the Inheritance Tax Act. There is no argument

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 3 possessed one promissory note with the plaintiffs' face value of 150,000,000 won for the non-party 1's issuance of the deceased non-party 1, and won for the plaintiff by filing a lawsuit against the plaintiffs for the prohibition of the payment of a bill against the plaintiff, which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and it is difficult to recognize that the establishment registration of a collateral for the real estate owned by the plaintiffs was completed, but it is hard to find that the non-party 3's obligation to the non-party 3 is a true obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as pointed out, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the law.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)