1. Whether the taxation disposition was made by reporting the cash as inherited property solely on the fact that the acquisition date of large cash by the inheritee is close to the death date;

2. In cases where an annual payment of inheritance tax is permitted under the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), whether the previous appellate court’s disposition on annual payment in the first year affects the second year’s disposition;

1. The fact that the date of acquisition of cash by an inheritee is close to the date of death and that the amount is large cannot be readily determined that the cash remains as inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance;

2. According to the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), in a case where one inheritance is based on one inheritance, it is permitted to impose separate independent taxation for each annual tax payment when one inheritance is permitted by annual installments. It is also subject to separate taxation for each disposition. Therefore, the effect of the previous trial on the disposition of annual installments for the first year does not extend to the second year disposition.

Inheritance Tax Act (Law No. 3474), Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 10667), Article 27-2

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Head of Daegu Tax Office

1. From among the imposition dispositions of KRW 9,121,489 on December 7, 1983 against Plaintiff 1 and 2, the part of the amount exceeding KRW 240,089, respectively, of KRW 1,200,448, and KRW 240,089, respectively, of KRW 1,200,448, and KRW 240,089, among the imposition dispositions of KRW 80,29,000, KRW 1,299, KRW 16,198, respectively, of the inheritance tax on December 7, 1983, the part of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,29, KRW 16,00, KRW 196, and KRW 198, KRW 160,059, KRW 6, and KRW 78, and KRW 40,005, KRW 40,04, and KRW 194, and each of these taxes imposed on Plaintiff 3,405, and KRW 8404, respectively.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims on the annual payment disposition by annual installments in the first year are dismissed.

3. Each lawsuit on the plaintiffs' claim for payment by annual installments in the second year shall be dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of claim for payment by annual installments in the first year are assessed against the defendant and the costs of claim for payment by annual installments in the second year.

(Request for Disposition by Annual Installments in the First Year) The portion of the tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff 1 and 2 on December 7, 1983, which exceeds KRW 9,121,489, and KRW 1,824,29, respectively, of KRW 1,565, and KRW 159,512, respectively, of KRW 159,512, among the taxes imposed on the Plaintiff 1 and 2 on December 7, 1983, exceeds KRW 6,080,92, KRW 1,216,198, KRW 10, KRW 106, KRW 3410, KRW 106, KRW 3410, KRW 106, KRW 106, and KRW 341, KRW 108, KRW 208, KRW 258, KRW 305, KRW 205, KRW 285, and KRW 198, respectively, shall be revoked.

(Claim for Disposition by Annual Installments in the second year) The part of the imposition of KRW 8,05,482 of the inheritance tax on November 7, 1984 against Plaintiff 1 and 2, each of which exceeds KRW 1,601,09,983 of the inheritance tax, and KRW 139,96 of the defense tax, each of which exceeds KRW 139,966 of the inheritance tax, and the part of the imposition of KRW 5,336,988 of the same inheritance tax on Plaintiff 3,4, and 5 of the same day, KRW 1,067,397, and KRW 1,397 of the same defense tax, which exceeds KRW 46,65, KRW 93,00 for each of the imposition dispositions by annual installments in the second year, KRW 1,63,300 for the defense tax, KRW 630 for the plaintiff 6,67,397, and KRW 93,300 for each of these taxes.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) Judgment on the annual payment disposition in the first year

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 갑 제4호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 제5호증의 1, 2, 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 을 제1호증의 1, 2, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제3호증의 1, 2, 을 제4호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 을 제5호증, 을 제6호증의 1, 2, 을 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제8호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제9호증, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제12, 13호증, 을 제14호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제15호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제16호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제17호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전 취지를 종합하면, 원고 1은 망 소외 1의 장남(호주상속인), 원고 2는 그의 처, 원고 3, 4, 5는 그의 아들들, 원고 6, 7, 8은 그의 출가녀들로서 1981. 9. 2. 위 망인의 사망으로 그 재산을 공동상속하고 나서 상속세법 제20조 제1항 소정의 상속재산신고기한내인 1981. 11. 28. 그 상속재산에 관하여 관할세무서장인 피고에게 상속재산신고를 함에 있어 상속재산가액을 별지 제1목록 상속재산가액표의 “원고들 신고액”난 기재와 같이 금 560,307,436원으로 평가하고 여기에서 당시 시행되던 상속세법(1981. 12. 31. 법률 제3474호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 구 상속세법이라고만 한다) 제4조 제1항 에 의한 공제액을 별지 제2목록 공제액내역표의 “원고들 신고액”난 기재중 합계액기재와 같이 금 516,081,273원, 구 상속세법 제5조 소정의 기초공제액 금 8,000,000원, 동법 제11조 제1항 소정의 배우자공제액 금 16,000,000원, 연로자공제액 금 1,000,000원 합계 금 541,081,273원을 공제하고 난 과세표준 금 19,226,163원(560,307,436원－541,081,273원)에 동법 제14조 소정의 세율을 적용하여 상속세산출세액을 금 4,064,633원｛3,990,000원＋(19,226,163원－19,000,000원)×33/100｝으로 산정하고, 이에서 동법 제20조의2 소정의 자진신고납부공제액 금 406,463원(4,064,633원×1/10)을 공제한 신고납부세액 금 3,658,170원을 산출하여 신고하였던 바 이에 대하여 피고는 1982. 10. 7. 원고들의 위 신고내용중 일부를 부인하여 상속재산가액에 ① 피상속인이 생전인 1981. 8. 21. 소외 2에게 대구시 북구 (이하 생략) 대 447.9평중 447.9분의 169지분과 그 지상건물 건평 100.9평을 처분한 대금 74,946,270원, ② 그가 1981. 8. 12.부터 1981. 8. 27.까지 사이에 조선철공주식회사로부터 가수금으로 인출한 금 56,000,000원, ③ 그가 1981. 8. 13.과 1981. 8. 14.에 처분한 조선철공주식회사의 주식 15,000주, 주식회사 삼성정공의 주식 11,700주의 대금 29,700,000원 합계 160,646,270원을 현금상속한 것으로 인정하여 가산함으로써 상속재산가액을 금 744,037,631원으로 증액평가하고, 상속세법 제4조 제1항 에 의한 공제액은 별지 제2목록 공제액내역표의 “피고인정액”난 기재와 같이 금 438,533,128원으로 감액평가하여 과세가액을 금 305,504,503원(744,037,631원－438,533,128원)으로 결정통지하였다가 1982. 11. 6. 원고들로부터 구 상속세법 제28조 에 의한 연부연납신청을 받자 1982. 12. 7. 이에 대한 결정을 함에 있어 앞서 상속재산가액에 산입하였던 위 ①의 부동산매도대금 74,946,270원에 관하여 피상속인이 동 대금을 받으면서 동 부동산에 관한 전세보증금반환채무 금 17,800,000원을 매수인이 채무인수하는 대신 이를 동 대금에서 공제하고 난 금 57,146,270원만 수령하였다고 하여 먼저 상속재산가액을 별지 제1목록 상속재산가액표의 “피고인정액”난 기재와 같이 금 726,237,631원으로 감액경정한 다음 앞서 인정한 상속세법 제4조 제1항 의 공제액 금 438,533,128원, 동법 제5조 소정의 기초공제액 금 8,000,000원, 제11조 소정의 배우자공제액 금 16,000,000원(원고의 신고내용중 연로자공제액 금 1,000,000원은 원고 2에 대한 공제액으로서 배우자 공제와 중복된다하여 이를 인정하지 아니하였다)을 공제하여 과세표준을 금 263,704,503원(726,237,631원－438,533,128원－8,000,000원－16,000,000원)으로 확정하고 이에 동법 제14조 소정의 세율을 적용하여 상속세산출세액 금 134,281,566원｛40,970,000원＋(263,704,503원－100,000,000원)×57/100｝을 산출하고, 이에서 앞서 본 자진신고공제액 금 406,463원을 공제하여 결정세액 금 133,875,103원을 산정하고 다시 원고들이 1982. 11. 9. 자진납부한 상속세 금 41,666,666원을 공제함으로써 연부세액의 총원금을 금 92,208,437원으로 결정하고, 위 상속세결정세액 금 133,875,103원을 방위세의 과세표준으로 하여 산출한 방위세산출세액 금 26,775,020원(133,875,103원×20/100)에서 원고들이 1982. 11. 9.에 자진납부한 방위세 금 8,333,334원을 공제함으로써 방위세 연부세액의 총원금을 금 18,441,686원으로 결정한 후 위 각 세액을 3차(1차납기 1983. 12. 7., 2차납기 1984. 12. 7., 3차납기 1985. 11. 7.)로 균분하고 각 이에 구 상속세법 제28조의2 , 구 상속세법시행령(1982.12.31. 대통령령 제10979호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조의2 소정의 연납이자(이율은 1일 5전 5리)를 붙여 연부연납할 것을 허가한다는 통지를 하였고, 1983. 12. 7.에 당초의 납부기한인 1983. 12. 7.을 1983. 12. 27로 연장결정하고, 상속세법시행령(1982. 12. 31. 대통령령 제10979호로 개정) 제27조의2 , 부칙 제2조에 따라 개정된 연납이자율(1일 5전)을 적용하여 계산한 연부연납 제1차년도분 상속세 금 47,103,143원, 동 방위세 금 9,420,628원 전액을 원고 1에게만 고지하였다가 1984. 4. 19.에 이르러 심사청구에 대한 결정(1984. 3. 30.)에 따라 피상속인이 위에서 본 ①,②,③의 현금으로 원대마을금고 채무 금 7,000,000원을 상환한바 있다하여 상속재산가액에서 이를 공제한 다음 연부연납 제1차년도 상속세와 방위세를 다시 산출하고 나서 원고 1의 상속분에 해당하는 세액을 따로 구분하여 상속세를 금 10,014,426원, 방위세를 금 2,002,884원으로 1차 경정결정하여 원고 1에게 고지하는 한편 원고 1을 제외한 나머지 원고들 7인에게 그들의 상속분에 해당하는 상속세 금 35,050,491원, 방위세 금 7,010,098원을 새로이 부과고지하였고 1984. 9. 27.에 이르러 심판청구에 대한 결정(1984. 9. 17.)에 따라 피상속인이 위에서 본 ①,②,③의 현금으로 부도어음채무 금 13,800,000원을 상환한 바 있다하여 상속재산가액에서 다시 이를 공제한 다음 원고들에 대한 연부연납세액 제1차년도분을 상속세 금 41,046,702원, 방위세 금 8,209,339원으로 2차 경정결정한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증 없으며, 피고가 1984. 9. 27. 제2차로 감액경정한 위 상속세와 방위세를 원고들의 각 상속분에 따라 원고 1, 2에 대하여는 상속세 각 금 9,121,489원, 방위세 각 금 1,824,297원 원고 3, 4, 5에 대하여는 상속세 각 금 6,080,992원, 방위세 각 금 1,216,198원, 원고 6, 7, 8에 대하여는 상속세 각 금 1,520,248원, 방위세 각 금 304,049원으로 각 구분하여 고지한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

Therefore, Plaintiff 1’s legal representative’s assertion that the above amount of real estate sale was included in the value of the inherited property of this case, ① KRW 57,146,270, ② KRW 56,000, ③ 142,846,270, the aggregate of the disposal price of shares 29,700, 600, which was 600, which was 160,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 16,000 won for 66,000 won for 6,000 won for 6,00 won for 6,00 won for 6,000 won for 6,00 won for 6,000 won for 6,000 won for 6,000 won for 6,00 won for 6,00 won.

Therefore, with respect to the above inherited property, it is clear that the defendant calculated a legitimate tax amount, 726,237,631 won (such as 142,846,270 won in cash, 13,800 won in cash, and 14,800 won in cash, 20,800 won in total, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 142,846,270 won in inheritance tax amount, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 142,86,846,270 won in total, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 30,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 40,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 20,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 30,8164,000 won in inheritance tax amount, 2637,364,27,064,0.

(2) Judgment on the disposition by annual installments for the second year is made.

On November 7, 1984, the Defendant divided the amount of annual installments tax of KRW 36,024,670, and the amount of KRW 7,204,930 for the second year portion of inheritance tax against the Plaintiffs on November 7, 1984, into the inheritance tax amount of KRW 8,005,482, respectively, and KRW 1,061,095, respectively, for Plaintiff 3,4, and 5, respectively, and KRW 5,336,98, and KRW 1,067,397, respectively, for Plaintiff 6,7, and 8, respectively, of inheritance tax of KRW 1,34,247, and the amount of defense tax of KRW 26,849, respectively, into the inheritance tax of the Plaintiffs. There is no dispute between the parties concerned.

The plaintiffs' attorney filed for the revocation of the above portion exceeding KRW 116,63, and KRW 23,32 of inheritance tax as to the defendant's second year's second year's second year's second year's second year's annual payment, and as to the plaintiff 1 and 2, the plaintiff 69,983 won of inheritance tax, KRW 69,983 won of defense tax, KRW 355 won of inheritance tax, KRW 93,300 of defense tax, KRW 93,30 of inheritance tax, KRW 66,630 of inheritance tax, and KRW 23,32 of the defense tax, respectively. Thus, prior to the judgment, we cannot find that the plaintiffs received the above second year' second year's second year's second year's annual payment disposition and did not go through the request for examination and the request for a trial, etc. through the previous record, and it cannot be found that the plaintiffs voluntarily did not go through the previous trial procedure and did not use it.

According to Articles 25 and 28 of the Inheritance Tax Act, which was amended by Act No. 3578 on December 21, 1982, and Articles 19 and 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 10979 of December 31, 1982), the Plaintiffs’ legal representative asserts that the annual payment of inheritance tax based on one inheritance would also affect the second annual payment of the year. According to the Inheritance Tax Act at the time of inheritance, the imposition of annual payment of inheritance tax based on one inheritance is only one tax disposition in cases where annual payment of annual payment is permitted, and it is interpreted that annual payment of annual payment is merely a collection of tax already imposed and notified in several installments. However, according to the Inheritance Tax Act at the time of inheritance at the time of inheritance at this case, in cases where annual payment of annual payment is permitted due to one inheritance, it is permitted to make an independent imposition of annual payment of each tax, and thus, it does not go through separate procedures for each lawsuit against it.

If so, the lawsuit on the claim for the second year disposition is illegal without going through the previous trial procedure.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim concerning the first year disposition is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the lawsuit concerning the second year disposition is inappropriate, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)