A. Whether withdrawal from a deposit constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property under Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act

(b) The burden of proving the use of the disposal value of the disposed inherited property within one year before the commencement date;

C. The presiding judge of the court of fact-finding's duty to furnish evidence

A. An ancestor’s withdrawal of a deposit from the deposit account in the name of the financial institution prior to the commencement date of inheritance is an act extinguishing a deposit claim against the financial institution, which is an inherited property, and is deemed an act constituting disposal of inherited property under Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); and the amount of withdrawal is small amount or the kind of deposit is not different.

B. The purport of Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3(3)1 through 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190) is that where the disposal value of the inherited property disposed of by the ancestor within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance is at least 50,000,000 won as calculated by the category of the property, the tax authority recognizes the conversion of the burden of proof and establishes that the purpose of use of the disposal value is objectively unclear, if the taxpayer proves that the disposal value of the inherited property is not clear, it may be included in the taxable value of inherited property even if the taxpayer fails to prove the purpose of use of the disposal value in cash. Thus, if the taxpayer proves the purpose of use of the disposal value of the inherited

C. The presiding judge of the fact-finding court is not required to urge the parties to prove all the cases where the parties have knowledge of the facts in dispute, but it is evident that the parties have failed to prove the facts in light of the level of lawsuit by misunderstanding or by misunderstanding, not to mention that the parties have no proof in accordance with the principle of burden of proof, but to urge them to prove the facts.

A. (B) Article 7-2(1)(b) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 3(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (liability for admission)

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1490 decided Dec. 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 282) 89Nu3311 decided Mar. 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 979) (Gong1992, 3037). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4045 decided Jul. 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1296) (Gong190, 1577) 90Nu5047 decided Apr. 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1259), 194Da305949 decided Aug. 23, 1994 (Gong1991, 199).

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-woo et al.

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu34017 delivered on November 18, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the assertion that the act does not constitute an act of disposal of property

To withdraw a deposit from the deposit account of a financial institution in the name of the decedent prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, the act extinguishing the deposit claim against the financial institution, which is inherited property, constitutes an disposal of inherited property under Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply). It shall not be deemed that the amount of the withdrawal is small amount or the kind of the deposit is a common deposit.

In light of the records, the court below recognized the fact that the deceased non-party 1 withdraws 113,60,000 won in total from the ordinary deposit account of a new bank in the name of the deceased within one year prior to the commencement date of the inheritance, and held that all of the withdrawals made out of the above ordinary deposit account including the small amount of the withdrawals constitute the disposal of inherited property under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the principle of no taxation without law.

2. As to the assertion that he/she has violated his/her duty to carry out seating

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above amount was 00 won or more of 00 won of 10,000 won of 10,000 won of 10,000 won of 10,000 won of 0,000 won of 10,000 won of 10,000 won of 10,000 won of 0,000 won of 10,000 won of 10,00 won of 10,000 won of 10,00 won of 10,000 won of 0,00 won of 10,00 won of 10,00 won of 0,00 won of 10,00 won of 0,00 won of 10,00 won of 7,00 won of 0,00 won of 0,00 won of 30,00 won of 10,00 won of 7.

The purport of Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3(3)1 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) is that where the disposal value of the inherited property disposed of by an ancestor within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance is at least 50,000,00 won by the type of property and the tax authority recognizes the conversion of the burden of proof and establishes that the purpose of use is objectively unclear, the amount can be included in the taxable value of inherited property even if the taxpayer fails to prove that the disposal value is inherited in cash, unless the taxpayer proves the purpose of use of the disposal value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu1490, Dec. 12, 198; 89Nu3199, Mar. 23, 199; 209Nu19499, Nov. 19, 2995).

However, according to the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below that the act of withdrawing KRW 113,60,000 in aggregate from the deposit account of the above new bank within one year prior to the commencement date of the deceased's inheritance constitutes a case where the disposal amount of inherited property under Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act is at least 50,000,000 won by calculating the total amount of inherited property by the category of property. Among them, 47,00,000 won among them is not verified as other property is not verified and its use is not objectively clear in light of the provisions of Article 3 (3) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. (The plaintiff's attorney has committed an error of law as to the portion exceeding KRW 47,00,000,000 among the total amount of the above withdrawal amount, but the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of facts, and it did not affect the judgment below's determination of facts.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant, who is the tax authority, can include the above money in the taxable value of inherited property in accordance with the provisions of Article 7-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act and Article 3 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, for the amount of KRW 47,00,000, whose purpose is objectively unclear among the amount of KRW 113,60,000 within one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance. However, if the plaintiffs who are the taxpayer prove their use, the above money shall not be included in the taxable value of inherited property.

However, according to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above plaintiffs were not subject to disposal of inherited property under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act because they did not have a 13,600,000 won which was withdrawn in the above new bank account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account deposit account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account account

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)