Seoul High Court 2012Nu6386 ( October 12, 2012)

Roads shall be appraised as zero if they have no property value.

In the event that there is no property value of inherited property under the principle of substantial taxation, it is reasonable to not impose inheritance tax by making the appraised value of the inherited property zero, and whether there is substantial property value on the road shall be determined through legitimate fact-finding, such as the state of use.

2012Du25019 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

The AA and 10 others

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu6386 Decided October 12, 2012

March 14, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assessment of the value of the instant road as zero (0) on the ground that the Defendant did not have property value, the lower court was justifiable. In the event that there is no property value of the inherited property under the principle of substantial taxation, it is reasonable to not impose inheritance tax by making the assessed value of the inherited property zero (0). Whether the instant road has substantial property value is determined through legitimate fact-finding, such as its utilization status, etc. The lower court’s determination of whether the instant road has property value is based on a legitimate fact-finding such as its use status, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation,

2. The lower court’s determination that did not recognize the amount of compensation claimed by the Plaintiffs as the price for similar sale cases is based on the fact-finding that the area, location, and other phenomena of the forest of this case and the land to be expropriated claimed by the Plaintiffs are not identical or similar. The record of the lower court’s determination cannot be said to have erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules in the fact-finding based on which the lower judgment was based. Although the lower court’s determination was inappropriate in determining whether the amount of compensation expropriated can be deemed as the market price for a period exceeding 6 months before and after the base date of appraisal, it does not seem to have an impact on the conclusion that it cannot be deemed as the price for similar sale cases. In addition, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion

3. In addition, considering the fact that, in the event that the defendant denies an application for permission to pay in kind with respect to the road and forest of this case or contests the permission to pay in kind at a price lower than the price claimed by the plaintiffs, it does not seek revocation of the disposition of imposition in kind on the ground that the inheritance tax imposed on the inherited property which applied for permission to pay in kind is too low, the legality of the disposition of refusal in kind is too low.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices, 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.