[1] The validity of a tax payment notice given to each co-inheritors by inserting the total amount of tax payable by the co-inheritors in the tax payment notice and attaching a detailed statement of notified tax amount by co-inheritors for each co-inheritors, including the amount of inherited tax

[2] Whether one of the co-inheritorss who received a collection disposition of the joint and several liability may seek revocation of the collection disposition on the ground that there exists a ground for revocation of the taxation disposition itself against other co-inheritors (negative)

[3] Whether an inheritor who is jointly liable for payment of inheritance tax by other co-inheritors is eligible to seek revocation of the tax assessment itself against other co-inheritors (affirmative)

[1] According to Article 18(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), each co-inheritors is obligated to jointly and severally pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of the property he/she received or to receive among the total amount of inheritance calculated by setting the total amount of the inherited property of the inheritee as the taxable value, as well as to jointly and severally pay the inherited property of other co-inheritors within the limit of his/her own or the property he/she receives. If one of the co-inheritors becomes a co-inheritors becomes final and conclusive by a tax assessment for each co-inheritors, the tax authority may commence the collection procedure against the co-inheritors immediately without any separate final and conclusive procedure. Accordingly, if each co-inheritors's obligation to jointly and severally pay the total amount of inheritance tax entered in a tax assessment notice with the ratio of possession of each co-inheritors and the ratio of the inherited property tax to be paid by each co-inheritors, and each co-inheritors's obligation to notify each co-inheritors and each co-inheritors's duty payer.

[2] If co-inheritors notified each co-inheritors of the total amount of tax payable by the co-inheritors in the tax payment notice, and each co-inheritors’ possession ratio of each co-inheritors and the amount of tax payable by each co-inheritors based on their respective inherited property and the ratio of the amount of tax assessed by each co-inheritors, the notification of collection of joint and several liability for inheritance tax by one co-inheritors among the co-inheritors based on such notification of tax payment to one of the co-inheritors has the nature of the other co-inheritors as a procedural disposition in accordance with the taxation disposition by each co-inheritors. Thus, unless the taxation disposition by other co-inheritors is null and void or non-existent, the defect in the taxation disposition cannot be deemed naturally succeeded to the collection disposition unless it is null and void or non-existent. Thus, one of the co-inheritors who received the collection of joint and several liability cannot seek the revocation of such

[3] In light of the fact that there is no separate final determination procedure for one of the co-inheritors as to the duty of joint payment, and that even at the stage of dispute over the collection disposition, the illegality of the tax disposition on other co-inheritors cannot be asserted. In the case of a heir who has the duty of joint payment on inheritance by other co-inheritors, it is deemed that the heir has a legal and specific interest in seeking revocation of the tax disposition on other co-inheritors, and therefore, the eligibility for seeking revocation is reasonable. The specific duty of joint payment, which becomes the person in a relationship with the co-inheritors, such as co-inheritors or co-inheritors, becomes final and conclusive by individual taxation on each co-inheritors, and thus, one of the co-inheritors, at this time, has a de facto indirect interest in the tax disposition on the other co-inheritors, and is different from the legal reasoning that there is no eligibility for the plaintiff.

[1] Article 18 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 25-2 (see current Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act / [2] Article 18 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 25-2 (see current Article 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14082 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 29 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see current Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) / [see current Article 9719 of the Inheritance Tax Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8279 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1730), Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu10316 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 558), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu68 delivered on September 24, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3240), Supreme Court Decision 98Du892 delivered on November 9, 2001 (Gong202Sang, 76) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 4292Nu73 delivered on October 26, 1961 (Special3-1, 301) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Nu1681 delivered on July 16, 197 (No. 3081 delivered on July 16, 197)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu8155 delivered on May 7, 1998

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 18(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that an inheritor is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of the property each has received or is to receive among inherited property. Article 18(2) provides that each obligee’s liability for the joint and several tax liability of inherited property under paragraph (1) shall be the limit of the property each has received or is to receive. Accordingly, each co-inheritors is jointly and severally liable to pay the inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of the property he/she received or is to receive among the total amount of the inherited property calculated based on the total amount of the inherited property of the inheritee calculated based on the taxable value of the inherited property.

B. The duty of joint payment of inheritance tax by other co-inheritors among co-inheritors naturally becomes final and conclusive when each of the unique duty of tax payment by each of the co-inheritors becomes final and conclusive by a taxation by each of them respectively, and in this case, the tax authority may initiate the collection procedure for the joint obligor immediately without any separate final and conclusive procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8279, Jul. 10, 1990). Therefore, if the tax authority entered the total amount of tax to be paid in the tax payment notice and notified each co-inheritors to each of the co-inheritors, along with the detailed amount of tax notified by each co-inheritors, stating the ratio of possession of each of the co-inheritors' inherited property and the amount of tax assessed by each of the co-inheritors calculated by each of the aforementioned ratios, such duty payment notice should be imposed and notified to each co-inheritors, and the aggregate (the total amount of tax recorded in the tax payment notice) of each co-inheritors's unique duty of tax payment and the amount of tax payable by the co-inheritors with other co-inheritors (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 136. 193.

C. However, the notice of collection of the joint and several obligation of other co-inheritors to one of the co-inheritors by the above notice of tax payment as to the inheritance tax by the other co-inheritors has the character of a disposition under the collection procedure in accordance with the respective tax assessment by other co-inheritors. Thus, as long as the tax assessment by other co-inheritors is not null and void or non-existent, the defect in the relevant tax assessment cannot be deemed as a matter of course to be succeeded to the collection disposition. As such, one of the co-inheritors who received the notice of collection of the joint and several obligation may not seek the revocation of the relevant collection disposition solely on the ground that there is a ground for revocation of the tax assessment by the other co-inheritors itself against the other co-inheritors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4292Da73, Oct. 26, 1961; 76Nu51

D. In light of the fact that there is no separate final determination procedure for one of the co-inheritors's joint payment obligations, and that even at the stage of litigation on the collection disposition, it is not possible to dispute the illegality of the taxation itself against other co-inheritors. In the case of an inheritor liable for joint payment of inheritance tax by other co-inheritors, it shall be deemed that the heir has a direct and specific interest in seeking revocation of the taxation itself against other co-inheritors, and therefore, the Plaintiff's eligibility to seek revocation is reasonable.

E. This is, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, that a specific joint and several obligation to be borne by a person in a relationship with a joint and several tax obligor, such as a co-owner or a joint and several entrepreneur, is finalized by an individual taxation for each person liable for joint and several tax payment. Therefore, one of the joint and several tax obligors has a de facto indirect interest in the taxation for other persons jointly and several liable for tax payment, and is not qualified as the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11, May 10, 198).

F. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff's eligibility in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of tax assessment against the non-party in its holding against the plaintiff, one of the co-inheritors who received the method of tax payment notice as seen earlier, as seen earlier, and dismissed the part of the lawsuit.

The first ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Before the judgment of the grounds of appeal as to the calculation of the value of real estate located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, the court below held that it was legitimate on the basis of Article 5-2 subparagraph 6 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990 and amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) on the premise that Article 9 (4) 4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4805 of Dec. 2, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) is valid, the defendant's decision as delegated by the above provision was made that the value of the above real estate should be calculated on the basis of Article 5-2 subparagraph 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190; hereinafter the same shall apply), but the remaining part of the judgment below's decision which rejected the above provision as unconstitutional.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)