(a) Whether the taxable amount of inheritance tax can be included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act even if the registration of ownership transfer was made after the registration of ownership transfer was made within one year before the commencement

B. Whether the provisions of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act stipulate that the disposal amount of the property disposed of shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes

A. If each land owned by the decedent was disposed of by the sales contract, etc. within one year before the commencing date of the inheritance, even if the registration of transfer of ownership was made after the decedent died, the disposal proceeds shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to the provisions of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990).

B. The provision of Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act purports that the amount of disposal of the property disposed of by the decedent 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, and it does not purport to include the property itself in

Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu134 delivered on July 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1741) 90Nu3393 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2458)

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Plaintiffs 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu14163 delivered on April 14, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that each land in the judgment was sold in 1,229,545,820 won in total within one year prior to the date of commencing the inheritance of this case by taking full account of the macro-city evidence (However, the part of the judgment below stating that "as of July 1, 1987, which was issued on June 26, 1987, before the death of the deceased, seems to be a clerical error in the certificate of the deceased's personal seal impression issued on June 26, 1987), and the court below did not find that there was an error of finding a fact in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in finding the above facts, by examining the record.

We cannot accept this issue merely because it criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if each of the above lands was actually disposed of by the sales contract, etc. within one year before the commencing date of the inheritance in this case, even if the registration of transfer of ownership was made after the death of the decedent, the disposal price shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu134, Jul. 13, 1990; 90Nu3393, Oct. 23, 1990; 90Nu393, Oct. 23, 1990). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that the above sales price was justified by the defendant who was included in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes in this case is correct

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' obligation to refund the deposit amount of KRW 92,00,000,000 in total to the non-party 3 and non-party 4 who leased and occupied the above store in each of the stores in the building owned by the deceased non-party 2, as the deceased's obligation, should be deducted from the value of the inherited property of this case. The court below determined that the non-party 5, the husband of the non-party 3, around November 15, 1987, leased the above store amount of KRW 1,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the non-party 4 leased the above store amount of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000 and then deducted from the amount of the deposit of this case to the non-party 30,000,000,000 of the remaining amount of the trust deposit of this case after the deceased's death.

In comparison with the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason for the argument.

C. The argument that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation method of the amount of reported tax credit and the amount of additional tax on negligent tax returns in the lower judgment is premised on the fact that the real estate disposed of by an ancestor is included in the taxable value under Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990). However, the provision of Article 7-2 of the above Inheritance Tax Act purports that the amount of disposal of the property disposed of by the ancestor within one year retroactively from the date the inheritance commences shall be included in the taxable amount of inheritance under Article 4 of the same Act, and the purport is not to include the property itself in the taxable amount

2. As to the ground of appeal by the defendant performer

The judgment of the court below on the fact that the plaintiff's theory points out (the amount that was withdrawn after the death of the deceased in the deposit account of the non-party investment trust company established in the name of the plaintiff and their children is inherited property in substance) is justified in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and there is no error of law by failing to conduct a deliberation like the theory of lawsuit or by erroneously recognizing facts in violation of the rules of evidence. The judgment of the party members pointing out the arguments is different from the case of this case, and thus, it is not a proper precedent

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)