Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Inheritance division registration as the condition for the spousal deduction
Supreme Court, Nov. 2, 2023, 2023Du44061 (judgment)
Case name: 상속세부과처분취소[구 상증세법상 배우자 상속공제의 필수적 요건을 갖추었는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where co-heirs did not register inheritance of land sold by the deceased before death and instead had ownership transferred directly to the buyer under Article 27 of the Real Estate Registration Act, did they meet the conditions in Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act for the spousal inheritance deduction, and is the report of inheritance division under the latter part of that Article an essential condition of the deduction?
Holding
No. The Court held that Article 19(2) requires registration of the inherited property in the spouse's name under an agreement to divide the estate, and that a direct transfer registration to the buyer under Article 27 of the Real Estate Registration Act cannot be treated as an estate divided in the spouse's name, so the condition was not met. It also held, reading the words, purpose, structure and amendment history, that the report of division under the latter part of Article 19(2) imposes only a duty to cooperate and is not an essential condition of the deduction, absent special circumstances such as an unavoidable reason for not dividing within the deadline under Article 19(3).
Summary of the holding, verbatim
공동상속인들이 매수인에게 직접 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다는 사정만으로 위 부동산에 관하여 배우자 명의로 상속재산분할협의에 따른 등기가 마쳐진 것과 동일하게 평가할 수 없어, 배우자 상속공제의 요건을 갖추지 못하였다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
A case where it was held that the determination of the court below that the requirements for the spouse inheritance deduction were not satisfied was justifiable, on the ground that the mere fact that the co-heirs directly completed the registration of transfer of ownership in favor of the purchaser cannot be evaluated as identical to registration in the name of the spouse pursuant to an agreement on division of inherited property having been completed with respect to the above real estate.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 상증세법상 배우자 상속공제를 받기 위해서는 상속재산인 위 부동산에 관하여 상속재산분할협의에 따른 배우자 명의로의 등기가 필요한데
Unofficial English translation
In order to receive the spouse inheritance deduction under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, registration in the name of the spouse pursuant to an agreement on division of inherited property with respect to the above real estate, which constitutes inherited property, is necessary, and
Factors
- 구 상증세법상 배우자 상속공제를 받기 위해서는 상속재산인 위 부동산에 관하여 상속재산분할협의에 따른 배우자 명의로의 등기가 필요한데
- 상속인인 배우자가 상속재산인 부동산에 관하여 그 명의의 상속등기를 마치지 아니한 채 부동산등기법 제27조에 따라 등기권리자에게 직접 등기를 마쳐 주었다는 이유만으로 위 부동산이 구 상증세법 제19조 제2항에서 정하는 ‘분할에 등기가 필요한 상속재산’에서 제외된다고 볼 수는 없고
- 공동상속인들이 매수인에게 직접 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다는 사정만으로 위 부동산에 관하여 배우자 명의로 상속재산분할협의에 따른 등기가 마쳐진 것과 동일하게 평가할 수 없어
- 상속인으로 하여금 배우자상속재산분할기한까지 상속재산의 분할사실을 신고하도록 협력의무를 부과한 것에 불과하고, 배우자 상속공제의 필수적 요건으로 볼 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• In order to receive the spouse inheritance deduction under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, registration in the name of the spouse pursuant to an agreement on division of inherited property with respect to the above real estate, which constitutes inherited property, is necessary, and
• the mere fact that the spouse, being an heir, without completing the registration of inheritance in his or her name with respect to the real estate constituting inherited property, directly completed the registration in favor of the holder of the right to registration pursuant to Article 27 of the Registration of Real Estate Act cannot be regarded as excluding the above real estate from the "inherited property for which registration upon division is required" prescribed in Article 19 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and
• the mere fact that the co-heirs directly completed the registration of transfer of ownership in favor of the purchaser cannot be evaluated as identical to registration in the name of the spouse pursuant to an agreement on division of inherited property having been completed with respect to the above real estate, and
• it merely imposes a duty of cooperation requiring the heir to report the fact of division of the inherited property by the deadline for division of inherited property inherited by the spouse, and it cannot be regarded as an essential requirement for the spouse inheritance deduction
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
헌법재판소 2012. 5. 31. 선고 2009헌바190 전원재판부 결정(헌공188, 994)
Unofficial English translation
Constitutional Court Decision 2009Hun-Ba190, full bench DECISION, decided May 31, 2012 (Hun-Gong 188, 994)
Decisions referred to
[1] 헌법재판소 2012. 5. 31. 선고 2009헌바190 전원재판부 결정(헌공188, 994)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances constitute an unavoidable reason under Article 19(3) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act?
Any amendment to Article 19 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, in particular to the requirement of actual division or to the report obligation, would call for this entry to be read again. A later decision treating a direct registration to a buyer under Article 27 of the Real Estate Registration Act as equivalent to registration of a division agreement, or defining the unavoidable reason under Article 19(3), would change this reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as following existing precedent, while the independent reading could not confirm one because the text cites no decision. The reasoning applies the cooperation-duty framework without naming an earlier case, so the two readings differ on its precedential status.
헌법재판소 2012. 5. 31. 선고 2009헌바190 전원재판부 결정(헌공188, 994)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 18 May 2023 (2022Nu67403), held that the plaintiffs had not met the conditions for the spousal inheritance deduction in Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. It reasoned that registration of the estate division agreement in the plaintiff spouse's name was necessary for the deduction, that the fact the heirs did not register inheritance and instead transferred ownership directly to the buyer under Article 27 of the Real Estate Registration Act did not take the property outside the category of estate for which registration is needed on division, and that the direct transfer could not be assessed as equivalent to registration under a division agreement in the plaintiff's name.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the lower court's statement that the report of inheritance division was an essential condition inappropriate, but held that the conclusion denying the deduction was correct. It saw no error of law on the conditions for the spousal inheritance deduction that would have affected the judgment. The plaintiffs' further arguments on money claims, the filing deadline where an heir resides abroad, and just cause for exemption from the surcharge were new matters raised only at the appeal stage and were rejected in any event.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the inherited property was registered in the spouse's name under an agreement to divide the estate within the spousal estate division deadline, so that the condition in Article 19(2) was actually met.
- A case in which the heir could not divide the estate by the deadline for an unavoidable reason under Article 19(3), which the Court named as an example of the special circumstances to which its rule that the report is not an essential requirement does not extend.
- A case in which the inherited assets need no registration, such as money claims, so that the rule on the 'estate for which registration is needed on division' does not arise.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the direct transfer registration against the spousal estate division deadline, and check the land register for any registration in the spouse's name within it. Then gather what the heirs relied on as an unavoidable reason under Article 19(3) and whether it was raised below, since the Court rejected the arguments first made at the appeal stage. Confirm which version of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act governs, as the decision applies the Act as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 17654 of 22 December 2020.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제19조 제1항, 제2항에 따른 배우자 상속공제의 입법 취지 / 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제19조 제2항 후문의 상속재산분할신고가 배우자 상속공제의 필수적 요건인지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 피상속인이 사망 전에 매도한 부동산을 공동상속인들이 상속등기를 마치지 아니한 채 부동산등기법 제27조에 따라 매수인에게 직접 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었는데, 공동상속인들이 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제19조 제2항에서 정한 배우자 상속공제의 요건을 갖추었는지 문제 된 사안에서, 배우자 상속공제의 요건을 갖추지 못하였다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The legislative purpose of the spouse inheritance deduction under Article 19 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / Whether the report of division of inherited property in the proviso to Article 19 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is an essential requirement for the spouse inheritance deduction (in principle, negative) [2] A case where, in a matter where it was at issue whether the co-heirs, who, without completing the registration of inheritance with respect to the real estate sold by the decedent prior to death, directly completed the registration of transfer of ownership in favor of the purchaser pursuant to Article 27 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, satisfied the requirements for the spouse inheritance deduction prescribed in Article 19 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it was held that the determination of the court below that the requirements for the spouse inheritance deduction were not satisfied was justifiable
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2020. 12. 22. 법률 제17654호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 상증세법’이라 한다) 제19조 제1항, 제2항에 따른 배우자 상속공제는, 배우자 간 상속이 수평적 이전이고 세대 간 이전은 아니므로 이를 감안하여 상속재산 중 일정 비율까지는 과세를 유보한 후 잔존배우자 사망 시 과세하도록 하는 이른바 ‘1세대 1회 과세원칙’과 잔존배우자의 상속재산에 대한 기여인정 및 생활보장을 반영한 것이다. 특히 구 상증세법 제19조 제2항에 따라 상속개시 후 배우자상속재산분할기한 내 배우자 앞으로 실제 상속재산분할이 완료되어야 배우자 상속공제를 허용하는 것은 상속재산 미분할 상태로 일단 배우자 상속공제를 받은 다음 추후 협의분할을 거쳐 자녀에게 재산을 이전하는 방법으로 부를 무상이전하려는 시도를 방지하고 상속세에 관한 조세법률관계를 조속히 확정하기 위한 데 그 입법 취지가 있다. 한편 구 상증세법 제19조 제3항에 따른 부득이한 사유로 배우자상속재산분할기한까지 배우자의 상속재산을 분할할 수 없는 등 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 구 상증세법 제19조 제2항 후문의 상속재산분할신고는 그 문언 내용과 취지 및 체계, 개정 연혁 등에 비추어, 상속인으로 하여금 배우자상속재산분할기한까지 상속재산의 분할사실을 신고하도록 협력의무를 부과한 것에 불과하고, 배우자 상속공제의 필수적 요건으로 볼 것은 아니다. [2] 피상속인이 사망 전에 매도한 부동산을 공동상속인들이 상속등기를 마치지 아니한 채 부동산등기법 제27조에 따라 매수인에게 직접 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었는데, 공동상속인들이 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2020. 12. 22. 법률 제17654호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 상증세법’이라 한다) 제19조 제2항에서 정한 배우자 상속공제의 요건을 갖추었는지 문제 된 사안에서, 구 상증세법상 배우자 상속공제를 받기 위해서는 상속재산인 위 부동산에 관하여 상속재산분할협의에 따른 배우자 명의로의 등기가 필요한데, 상속인인 배우자가 상속재산인 부동산에 관하여 그 명의의 상속등기를 마치지 아니한 채 부동산등기법 제27조에 따라 등기권리자에게 직접 등기를 마쳐 주었다는 이유만으로 위 부동산이 구 상증세법 제19조 제2항에서 정하는 ‘분할에 등기가 필요한 상속재산’에서 제외된다고 볼 수는 없고, 공동상속인들이 매수인에게 직접 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다는 사정만으로 위 부동산에 관하여 배우자 명의로 상속재산분할협의에 따른 등기가 마쳐진 것과 동일하게 평가할 수 없어, 배우자 상속공제의 요건을 갖추지 못하였다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2020. 12. 22. 법률 제17654호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제19조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항 [2] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2020. 12. 22. 법률 제17654호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제19조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항, 부동산등기법 제27조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger