Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 1988) means the market value.

Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 198) means, in principle, the value of inherited property calculated pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec

Article 5 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 198)

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu322 Delivered on November 27, 1984

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Song Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1404 delivered on November 10, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the records, we affirm the court below's measure that did not recognize 120,000,000 won of the deceased non-party 1's debt of the lawsuit, and there is no error of misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles of the Inheritance Tax Act. Thus, the court below's argument is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the records, among the appraisal of the defendant's inherited property, it is clear that the court below determined the market price at the time of imposing the inheritance tax of this case at the time of imposing the inheritance tax of this case and calculated the reasonable amount of the inheritance tax to be paid by the plaintiffs, based on the result of the appraisal by the non-party 2 by the non-party 2 of the judgment below as to the land that the plaintiffs dispute among the appraisal of the defendant's inherited property.

Therefore, the issue is without merit, based on the premise that the reasoning of the lower judgment was erroneous or the facts were not alleged in the lower court.

With respect to the third point:

The grounds for the theory of the Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 1’s co-ownership of the instant real estate are true that the Plaintiffs did not assert in the lower court.

Therefore, it is groundless without examining the issue.

2. We also examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12567 of Dec. 31, 1988, hereinafter the "Decree"), where the value of inherited property is appraised at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the value according to the current status at the time of commencement of the inheritance or the value at the time of imposition of the inheritance tax shall be calculated at the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, if the market price is known, the value of the inherited property shall be calculated in principle. This value means the market price which is exchange value, but if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall include the value appraised at an objective and reasonable method in lieu of the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu322 of Nov. 27, 1984).

Therefore, on the premise that appraisal value of a reliable appraisal institution can be seen as the market price under the same view, and on the premise that the market price of the above land was known at the time of imposing the inheritance tax of this case, there was no error in the judgment of the court below which judged that the assessment of this case was erroneous based on the higher rate method than the market price recognized by Nonparty 2’s appraisal result. The appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of law, and the appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the court below is the appraisal by Nonparty 4 of the court below as of March 4, 1987 at the time of the tax assessment. The appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the court below is the appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the court below as of October 19 (No. 9-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 9) of the same year at the time of the price.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)