Inheritance tax amount to be borne by co-inheritors without stating the amount of inheritance tax to be imposed by each co-inheritors and the details of calculation thereof, by stating the taxpayer as “A and four persons” and serving only the other inheritors upon Gap (affirmative)

In notifying the inheritance tax and defense tax against the co-inheritors Gap and the plaintiffs, if the tax authority served a tax notice stating "non-party 4" without stating the amount to be borne by the plaintiffs and the details of calculation thereof, and only served a tax notice stating "non-party 4" to Gap, the imposition disposition of inheritance tax against the plaintiffs by the above tax notice is unlawful.

Articles 25-2 and 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu98 delivered on July 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 824) 83Nu221 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 637) 83Nu534 delivered on July 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1446) 85Nu624 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 451) 86Nu673 delivered on May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 108) 87Nu545 delivered on November 222, 198 (Gong1989, 277) 88Nu799690 delivered on November 10, 1989

Kim Jong-si and three plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu15675 delivered on May 4, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As determined by the court below, if the defendant decided on May 29, 1986 to calculate 233,515,620 won defense tax amounting to 46,703,120 won, defense tax amounting to 233,515,620 won, and notified this, if the plaintiffs' tax amount to be borne by them and the taxpayer were not stated in the calculation statement, and only the taxpayer was served with the above did not specify the calculation statement, the defendant's disposition of inheritance tax, etc. against the plaintiffs by the above tax payment notice is illegal. The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)