Whether the real estate actually disposed of by sales contract, etc. before commencement of the inheritance but registered in the name of the inheritee at the time of commencement of the inheritance is included in the inherited property (negative)

Even if the registration of the real estate actually disposed of by the sales contract, etc. before the commencement of the inheritance remains in the name of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, such registration

Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4275 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Attorneys Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu13061 delivered on August 24, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Considering the fact that the inheritance tax is a tax system based on the ability to acquire property without compensation and the purport of Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, if any real estate was actually disposed of by a sales and purchase contract, etc. before the commencement of the inheritance, the registration of such real estate shall not be included in the inherited property even if it exists in the name of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3393, Oct. 23, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 5, 1983, when the predecessor died between the non-party who wants to construct apartment on the real estate of this case and the non-party who agreed to sell the real estate of this case to the non-party 117,660,00 won on March 5, 1983, before the death of the predecessor, and the non-party, in order to secure the payment of intermediate payment and remainder other than the down payment paid on that day, shall be registered as the joint name of the plaintiff 1, who operates the housing construction business and the non-party who actually started the construction of apartment, and the non-party, who actually received the registration of the housing construction business and the construction of the apartment, are paid under the agreement, and the non-party, who did not receive the certificate of completion inspection as a civil petition of neighboring residents at the time of the completion of the construction of the apartment construction, are not paid at once due to the reasons as stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below erred in the misapprehension of evidence and the records of this case are justified.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)