(a) The case holding that the procedure of the previous trial is required;

(b) A legality of an inheritance tax notice that omits any particulars, such as the basis for calculating the amount of duty, or fails to attach a statement of calculation of tax base and amount (negative);

(c) Where a inheritance tax payment notice has been issued only for one of co-inheritors, the effects on the rest of inheritors;

D. Whether the title trust is subject to deemed donation under Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) (negative)

A. In the instant case, only the fact that the Plaintiff (A), (B), and (B) donated shares to each Plaintiff is the reason for taxation, and the tax authority differs from the date of the disposition, the taxpayer, and the details of the disposition, and the Plaintiff (A) cannot be deemed to have given the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal an opportunity to determine the facts and legal issues of each taxation on the remaining Plaintiff (B), (B), and (B) by undergoing the pre-trial procedure, and the Plaintiff (B) cannot file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case without undergoing the pre-trial procedure.

B. Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act ordering a tax notice to attach a tax base and a statement of calculation of tax amount to a tax payment notice, Article 9(2) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which requires a tax payment notice to specify the tax year, tax item, tax amount, and the basis for calculating the amount of tax, payment period, place of payment, etc., does not merely provide a decoration for the convenience of tax administration, but rather provides a fair tax administration by excluding, careful and reasonable taxation by excluding the person of the tax authority in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law, and by allowing the taxpayer to file a reasonable taxation disposition, and by providing the taxpayer with the convenience of filing an objection by notifying the details of the tax disposition in detail. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate tax payment notice unless there is an omission of

C. The notice of the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax pursuant to Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982 and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 10979 of Dec. 31, 1982 is effective as a duty payment notice to the heir who is the taxpayer, because it is different from the notice of the taxable amount of inheritance tax pursuant to Article 25 of the Inheritance Tax Act prior to the amendment, so that the latter becomes effective as a duty payment notice to specifically determine the liability for tax payment to the heir. If there are more than one heir, if only one person falls under any of subparagraphs of Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act among the heirs, the notice of the tax base and tax amount shall affect all the successors. Thus, even if the remaining inheritors' names are not individually indicated in the notice of tax payment, and the tax base and tax amount are not stated in the calculation basis, and even if there are defects in the method of tax payment notice.

D. The so-called title trust, which only entrusts the title of ownership, cannot be deemed as a trust stipulated in Article 1(2) of the Trust Act. Thus, even if the fact that the title trust is the nominal trust pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act was not registered, registered, indicated, or indicated pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the same Act, it cannot be deemed that the title truster donated the property to the title trustee pursuant to Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 191

A. Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 18 and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981), Article 103 of the Civil Act (title trust)

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu624 delivered on July 7, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu624 delivered on February 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu415 delivered on February 24, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu56 delivered on May 12, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu839 delivered on December 22, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404 delivered on February 9, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu301 delivered on October 14, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu673 delivered on May 26, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 78Nu396 delivered on November 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu891 delivered on November 26, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu898389 delivered on August 387, 198487

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and seven others, who are in charge of the Pacific Law Office, Kim Jae-in et al.

1. The director of the tax office; and

2. The head of the provincial tax office;

3. The head of the same tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu440 delivered on June 3, 1988

1. Of the judgment below, the part of the judgment against Defendants 2, 3, 4, and 5 against the Head of Yongsan Tax Office is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. Each of the appeals by plaintiffs 6 and 7 and the appeals by the chief of Yongsan Tax Office against plaintiffs 1 and those by the chief of defendant Yongsan Tax Office are dismissed.

3. Each of the costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against each party.

1. The summary of the facts established by the court below is as follows.

(A) At the time of December 31, 1980, five persons, including Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, who died on March 9, 1981, who owned the shares of Nonparty 1,494,000 shares of Nonparty 1,49, were succeeded to the heritage of the deceased.

(B) Of the above shares 1,494,00 shares, 177,920 shares of 177,920 shares were recorded on January 6, 1981 in the share register of the non-party company as follows: (a) Plaintiff 7, the largest fraud of the deceased; (b) Plaintiff 6, the smallest fraud of the deceased on February 14, 1981; and (b) Plaintiff 222,40 shares to Plaintiff 8, the punishment of Plaintiff 7, respectively, are recorded on the share register of the non-party company.

(C) In submitting a report pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act to the head of Yongsan Tax Office (the head of the competent district tax office) on June 8, 1981, five persons, including Plaintiff 1, etc., the above deceased’s property heir, excluded the total of 483,320 shares of the above shares, the transfer of which is registered, from the inherited property, to three persons including Plaintiff 7, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 8.

(D) On May 29, 1986, the above Defendant included 483,320 shares of 483,320 shares (value assessed 252,776,360 shares) in the inherited property. As the inheritor transferred the above deceased's shares to reduce the inheritance tax amount, it was not only deemed that the deceased transferred the relevant documents after the death of the deceased, but also excluded the deceased from the inherited property, and the inheritor directly donated KRW 40,000,000 to the Sora Village on November 5, 1981, the above deceased did not specifically specify the grounds for calculating the inheritance tax amount of KRW 292,76,360 as well as the tax amount of KRW 40,000 to the non-party 2 on January 31, 1981, the deceased did not specify the grounds for calculating the inheritance tax amount of KRW 30,000,000,000 to the non-party 2 as the inheritor and did not specify the tax amount of KRW 292,7315,36145.

(E) The Defendants applied Article 32-2 (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981) to the above shares that were transferred to Plaintiffs 7, 6, and 8, etc. as title trust to each of the above plaintiffs, and upon the application of the inheritance tax law that was in force at that time, the Defendants issued a notice to the head of Yongsan Tax Office on May 29, 1986 that the gift tax amount of KRW 24,461,120, and the defense tax amount of KRW 4,892,220, and the defense tax amount of KRW 58,85,420, and defense tax amount of KRW 11,71,080, KRW 309,000, KRW 381,688, Jun. 7, 1986.

(F) Accordingly, in accordance with the purport of the decision of the Director of the National Tax Tribunal on the appeal filed by Plaintiff 1 on the inheritance tax and defense tax under the above Paragraph (d), only notified the purport of reducing the amount of the inheritance tax and defense tax to be reduced by five heirs, without stating the amount of the tax to be reduced by five heirs, to “Plaintiff 1 and four others” in the future “Plaintiff 1 and four others” without stating the amount of the tax to be reduced by 37,497,910 and the amount of the defense tax to be reduced by 7,49,580 won.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 6 and 7.

(A) As to the second ground for appeal:

The court below rejected the suit of this case filed by the above plaintiffs 1 on the ground that it is illegal because the plaintiff 1 was written as "the plaintiff 1 et al. and 7 persons" in the claimant column, submitted a written request for review and a written request for trial, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff 6 and the plaintiff 7 did not go through the pre-trial procedure, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff 1 did not go through the pre-trial procedure on behalf of the above plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to prove that the lawsuit of this case filed by the above plaintiffs 1 was conducted the pre-trial procedure under the National Tax Trial Act. Accordingly, according to the relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence as in the judgment of the court below, and there is no ground for the argument.

(B) As to the first ground for appeal:

According to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation claiming that "disposition under tax-related Acts, such as taxation disposition, is illegal, and claiming its revocation is not possible without undergoing all the two-stage pre-trial procedures, such as a request for examination and a request for trial, as prescribed in the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu102, May 24, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu219, Jun. 9, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu879, May 27, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu304, Jul. 23, 1985); and the provisions of Articles 18(2) and (3) and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, etc., shall not apply to such so-called tax litigation pursuant to Article 56(2) of the same Act.

However, if two or more administrative dispositions were conducted in a series of stages of development for the same purpose, they are related to each other (e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu393 Decided July 7, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu297 Decided July 22, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu297 Decided July 27, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 200Nu1879 Decided July 28, 207 Decided the same taxation procedures as those for the plaintiff 209 Decided July 27, 208; Supreme Court Decision 200Nu9799 Decided July 27, 208; Supreme Court Decision 200Da48799 Decided July 27, 198; Supreme Court Decision 2008Nu974879 Decided July 198, 207).

However, in the case of this case, each taxation disposition against plaintiffs 8, 6, and 7 is limited to both the tax authority and the taxpayer, the date of the disposition, and the content of the disposition, and it is common that the above plaintiffs were donated shares to the third party of the above plaintiffs. Since the heir of the above plaintiffs' third party respectively became a taxable cause, each taxation disposition against the above plaintiffs 3 cannot be deemed as an independent disposition, respectively. Further, since the plaintiff 8 was subject to the prior trial procedure, it cannot be deemed that the Commissioner of National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal provided the opportunity to determine facts and legal issues concerning each taxation disposition of this case against the plaintiffs 6 and 7, and it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs 6 and 7 had the opportunity to separately undergo the prior trial procedure, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs 1 and 3 were able to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of each taxation disposition of this case without undergoing the prior trial procedure, and it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to view that the above plaintiffs 1 and 3 were different reasons for each taxation disposition of this case as well.

Ultimately, the argument that the plaintiff 6 and the plaintiff 7 can file a lawsuit claiming the revocation of each taxation disposition of this case even without going through the procedure of the previous trial is without merit, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this senior litigant by the chief of the defendant Yongsan District Tax Office.

(A) Following the determination of the facts as above 1.3 above, Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc. provide for special provisions on the method of serving a tax payment notice to other co-inheritors to promote the convenience of tax administration. Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies only to the so-called taxation disposition ordering the performance of the specific taxation claim, and it is difficult to apply to the tax payment notice where the notice was issued by the above tax payment notice (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu81, Oct. 22, 1985). Thus, it is difficult to determine that there is no special provision on the method of serving a tax payment notice by the plaintiff 2, who is the representative of co-inheritors, as well as the above tax payment notice by the plaintiff 1, who is the above 3rd co-inheritors, and thus, it cannot be seen that there is no need for each of the above tax payment notice by the plaintiff 17.

(B) Of course, Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 10-2 of the same Act, Article 25 of the Inheritance Tax Act, which provides for the determination and correction of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax; Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the notification of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax; and Article 9 of the same Act, are considered as a whole; the obligation to pay inheritance tax is abstract at the time of commencement of inheritance (Article 21(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes); Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides for the determination and determination of tax liability; Article 28-18 of the same Act, which provides for the determination and determination of tax base and amount of inheritance tax; Article 9-2 of the same Act, which provides for the determination and determination of tax base and amount of tax pursuant to Article 19-2 of the National Tax Collection Act.

Ultimately, among the judgment below, we cannot accept the part concerning plaintiff 1, since there is no reason for discussing the part concerning plaintiff 1.

(C) However, since Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982 and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 10979 of Dec. 31, 1982 provide that a notice of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that such notice shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that a notice shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee pursuant to the provisions of Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, which provides that a notice of the tax base and amount of inheritance tax shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that a notice of tax base and amount of inheritance tax shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that, if the heir or testamentary donee is more than two, a notice of tax base and amount of inheritance tax shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that, if so, that notice shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee; that notice shall be given to the heir or testamentary donee.

In this regard, in the case of income tax or corporate tax, etc., if the director of the tax office notifies two or more persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment of the tax base and tax amount determined or corrected under Article 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act or Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, according to the procedure under Article 128 of the Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the tax office shall individually notify them of the tax base and tax amount determined or corrected under the provisions of Article 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, but he must pay attention to the difference between each of them (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu81, Oct. 22, 1985) and the case of inheritance tax. According to Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national tax is defined as the amount of tax determined by the procedure under the relevant tax law.

Therefore, in this case, under Article 25 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the head of Yongsan Tax Office, determined the tax base and amount of inheritance tax on five persons including plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to Article 25 of the Inheritance Tax Act, and notified them by the notice of tax payment to these heirs, as well as the name of "4" was indicated as "Plaintiff 1 and 5," and the total amount of inheritance tax and the calculation basis thereof were not specified and delivered only to the plaintiff 11, although five inheritors did not state the particulars of their tax base and calculation, as determined by the court below, the heir of the above deceased 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not stated in the above notice of tax payment as to the plaintiff 6's heir's excluding plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5, as stated by the above decision of the court below, the remaining tax base and amount of tax on the plaintiff 1 and the heir's remaining grounds of tax payment are not stated in the above notice of tax payment.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deliberate and decide on whether the plaintiff 1 falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, and served a tax notice stating only "non-party 4" on the plaintiff 1 without specifying the remaining taxpayers other than the above plaintiff 1. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the above tax disposition of the plaintiff 1 was imposed on the plaintiff 4 other than the plaintiff 1 and accepted the above plaintiff 4's claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the tax disposition of this case. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the latter part of Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 25-2 of the same Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affects the judgment. Thus, the part of the court below's decision that cited the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant 4, including the plaintiff 2, 4, and the plaintiff 5, cannot be reversed.

4. We examine the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal of the new filial consciousness of the litigation performer at the head of the defendant Dong branch

Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981, which provides for the constructive gift of trust property, provides that if a trust was established for the property, the trust property under the name of the trustee is not registered or recorded in the register of shareholders or the register of bonds pursuant to Article 3 of the Trust Act, or is not recorded in the register of shareholders or the register of bonds, the trust property under the name of the trustee shall be deemed to have been donated to the trustee on the date when the registration, registration, indication, or entry is made. Thus, in the case of so-called title trust under which only the owner is entrusted, the truster shall not be deemed to be a trust under Article 1(2) of the Trust Act, and even if the title truster did not register, register, indicate, or enter the fact that it is a trust property under the name of the owner in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Trust Act, it shall not be deemed that the title truster has donated the property to the trustee in accordance with the above Article 32 of the Act.

The Supreme Court Decision 84Nu363 delivered on February 24, 1987 ruled 84Nu363 delivered on December 24, 1987 was amended by Act No. 3474 delivered on December 31, 1981, and Article 32-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act was enforced on January 1, 1982, and thus, the issue is different from this case.

Ultimately, I cannot accept the issue because it criticizes the judgment of the court below from an independent view.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against four of the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5, among the judgment below, shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below as to this part. On the other hand, the appeal against the plaintiff 6's chief of the tax office, the appeal against the plaintiff 7 against the plaintiff 1 and the appeal against the plaintiff 8 by the defendant 7 against the defendant 1 and the appeal against the plaintiff 8 by the defendant 9 of the tax office are all dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against the dismissed part shall be borne by each appellant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)