Whether it is included in the value of inherited property after disposal of inherited property within one year before the commencement of inheritance.

Where the use of the proceeds is not objectively clear after disposing of the immovables of an inheritee within one year before the commencement of the inheritance, such proceeds shall be included in the value of the inherited property.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

원고의 어머니인 소외 망 임ㅇㅇ이 1985. 1. 7. 소외 김ㅇㅇ에게 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 85.6평방미터 및 그 지상3층건물을 금128,000,000원에 매도하고 나서 같은해 11. 16. 장남인 원고와 출가한 딸 2인을 남기고 사망하였는데, 피고는 1988. 2. 1. 위 부동산의 양도는 상속개시전 1년 이내에 상속재산을 처분한 것으로서 그 대금의 용도가 객관적으로 명백하지 않다는 이유로 상속세법 제7조의2 를 적용하여 위 매매대금을 상속재산가액으로 하여 상속세 및 방위세의 세액을 산출하고 그 산출세액 중 원고의 상속지분에 해당하는 상속세 금27,236,000원 및 방위세 금4,952,000원을 원고에게 부과하였던 사실과 그 후 원고는 이법원 89누 5577호로 위 부과처분취소청구의소를 제기하여 그 심리결과 상속세는 금25,036,000원, 방위세는 금4,552,000원으로 감액하는 내용의 판결이 선고되었고, 원고가 위 판결에 대하여 상고하였으나 1988. 12. 26. 대법원에 의하여 상고기각됨으로써 위 판결이 확정된 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

The plaintiff asserts that Article 7-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, which is the basis for the imposition of a final and conclusive disposition by the above judgment, is an invalid disposition in violation of the constitutional provision that provides for the guarantee of property rights of the people, the constitutional equal right provision under the Constitution, and the principle of clarity of taxation requirements under the no taxation without law.

On the other hand, Article 7-2 of the above Inheritance Tax Act aims to prevent the transfer of property to the heir by disposing of the property before the transfer for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax. Thus, it cannot be deemed invalid in violation of the constitutional provision guaranteeing the property rights of the citizens, the constitutional equality provision under the Constitution, and the principle of no taxation without law. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition of imposition is null and void on the premise that the above provision

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is improper, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.