【Holding】
[1] Where, in imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the asset at the individually assessed official land price on the ground that it was difficult to assess the market price of the asset at the time of inheritance and imposed tax accordingly, but the market price of the asset at the time of inheritance is proven by the close of pleadings in the fact-finding instance of the action for revocation of the tax assessment, the reference price for determining whether the tax amount of the assessment exceeds the legitimate tax amount (= market price) / Meaning of "market price" in this context and whether, where there is no exchange price through transactions, the appraised value by a retroactive appraisal of a credible appraisal institution may be regarded as the "market price" (affirmative) / Whether this legal principle applies even where the tax authority imposed tax by applying the part in the second parentheses of Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (where there is a value determined or corrected by the head of a tax office, etc.) on the ground that it had previously determined the value of the inherited property, unless that value is recognized as a market price with objectivity and reasonableness (affirmative)
[2] In a case where A reported both the tax base and the tax amount of inheritance tax as "zero," and the competent head of the tax office assessed the value of the inherited real estate according to the supplementary valuation method and determined both the tax base and the tax amount of inheritance tax as "zero"; thereafter, A transferred the real estate and reported and paid capital gains tax using as the acquisition value the value set by the former head of the tax office, and then filed a request for correction seeking to reflect as the acquisition value of the real estate the value obtained by a retroactive appraisal by an appraisal firm of the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance; and the competent head of the tax office refused it, the Court held that the lower court's judgment that the disposition was unlawful, on the ground that the value set by the former head of the tax office could not be regarded as an assessment of the market price of the real estate as of the date of commencement of inheritance by an objective and reasonable method, was justified
【Summary of Decision】
[1] In imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, even where the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the asset at the individually assessed official land price on the ground that it was difficult to assess the market price of the asset at the time of inheritance and imposed tax accordingly, if the market price of the asset at the time of inheritance is proven by the close of pleadings in the fact-finding instance of the action for revocation of the tax assessment, the legitimate transfer margin and tax amount must be calculated on the basis of that market price, and then it must be determined whether the tax amount of the assessment exceeds the legitimate tax amount. Here, "market price" in principle means the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions, but since it is a concept that also includes a value assessed by an objective and reasonable method, where there is no exchange price through transactions, the appraised value of a credible appraisal institution may also be regarded as the "market price," and this does not change even if that value is based on a retroactive appraisal. This legal principle should be regarded as applying equally even where the tax authority imposed tax by applying the part in the second parentheses of Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (before being amended by Presidential Decree No. 31442, Feb. 17, 2021) (hereinafter the "above provision") on the ground that it had previously made a determination on the value of the inherited property under Article 76 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before being amended by Act No. 17654, Dec. 22, 2020; hereinafter the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), unless that value is recognized as a market price with objectivity and reasonableness. The specific reasons are as follows.
① Where the property received by an heir through inheritance exists but the inheritance tax payable is "zero" due to the application of inheritance deductions, etc., no tax burden arises for the heir for the time being, and whether and when the inherited property will be transferred and how much the capital gains tax burden will be are merely uncertain future circumstances. Accordingly, in reality, heirs will not infrequently take no particular action, thinking that they can dispute the relevant tax assessment if the actual tax burden materializes at the capital gains tax stage. Nevertheless, if the above provision were interpreted to mean that "as long as a determination or correction of the value of inherited property by the head of a tax office, etc. under Article 76 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act precedes in time, the value set in such determination, etc. is unconditionally deemed to be the acquisition value of the asset at the capital gains tax stage," where the inheritance tax payable is "zero," the unjust result would follow that the taxpayer is effectively deprived, at both the inheritance tax and the capital gains tax stages, of the opportunity to judicially challenge the value of the inherited property set in the determination of the inheritance tax base. Therefore, in order to sufficiently guarantee the constitutional property rights and the right to trial of citizens who are taxpayers, the scope of application of the above provision should be interpreted restrictively, so that it may apply only where the value determined or corrected by the head of a tax office, etc. for the inherited property satisfies objectivity and reasonableness. In this way, the taxpayer is substantially afforded, at least at the capital gains tax stage, the opportunity to dispute the "market price at the time of acquisition" of the inherited property deducted from the transfer margin and can be relieved of the disadvantage of bearing an excessive capital gains tax burden, and this result is also consistent with the principle of taxation according to ability to pay under the Income Tax Act and the principle of guaranteeing property rights under the Constitution.
② The above provision was indeed introduced to correct, at the capital gains tax stage, the inconsistency between the standard for calculating the value of inherited property at the inheritance tax stage and the standard for calculating the acquisition value at the capital gains tax stage. However, even considering this legislative purpose, it is proper to understand that deeming the value of the inherited property determined by the head of a tax office, etc. at the time of the determination of the inheritance tax base to be the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition under the above provision presupposes that the value satisfies objectivity and reasonableness. Beyond this, there is no basis for regarding the above provision as having been introduced for the purpose and intent of unconditionally precluding the taxpayer from disputing, at the capital gains tax stage, errors in the previous determination of the inheritance tax base.
[2] In a case where A reported both the tax base and the tax amount of inheritance tax as "zero," and the competent head of the tax office assessed the value of the inherited real estate according to the supplementary valuation method and determined both the tax base and the tax amount of inheritance tax as "zero"; thereafter, A transferred the real estate and reported and paid capital gains tax using as the acquisition value the value set by the former head of the tax office, and then filed a request for correction seeking to reflect as the acquisition value of the real estate the value obtained by a retroactive appraisal by an appraisal firm of the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance; and the competent head of the tax office refused it, the Court held as follows: the value set by the former head of the tax office differed considerably from the appraised value of the first instance court's appraiser and cannot be regarded as an assessment of the market price of the real estate as of the date of commencement of inheritance by an objective and reasonable method; therefore, when calculated on the basis of the appraised value of the first instance court's appraiser, which is deemed to be the "actual transaction value at the time of acquisition" of the real estate pursuant to the main text of Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (before being amended by Presidential Decree No. 31442, Feb. 17, 2021) and Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before being amended by Act No. 17654, Dec. 22, 2020), the amount of capital gains tax that the head of the tax office must refund to A exceeds the tax amount for which A requested correction, and thus the lower court's judgment that the disposition was unlawful was justified.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 97(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act; Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (before being amended by Presidential Decree No. 31442, Feb. 17, 2021); Articles 60 and 76 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before being amended by Act No. 17654, Dec. 22, 2020) [2] Articles 94(1)1 and 97(1)1 and (5) of the former Income Tax Act (before being amended by Act No. 17757, Dec. 29, 2020); Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (before being amended by Presidential Decree No. 31442, Feb. 17, 2021); Articles 60, 61(1), 67, and 76 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before being amended by Act No. 17654, Dec. 22, 2020)
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8751, September 30, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2022)
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2022Du67357, August 12, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail