2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs succeeded to the deceased's property on November 29, 2008 as the wife and children of the deceased Lee Dong-A (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased"). On May 29, 2009, the plaintiffs submitted a written agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on the division of inherited property") to the defendant on May 2009 of the following contents (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement on the division of inherited property of the plaintiffs under the above agreement"), and reported and paid 000 won in total, such as the "reported tax amount on the division of inherited property" in attached Form 1.

B. From September 27, 2010 to November 26, 2010, Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiffs, and determined that ① deposit of securities account in the name of B B, and deposit of securities account in the name of the PlaintiffCC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the issues of this case”) should be added to the value of each inherited property as the property it held in title by the Deceased; ② the market value of the real estate shares in this case should be increased from KRW 00 to KRW 00,000, which was initially declared by the Plaintiffs; ④ the amount of the spouse inheritance deduction should be increased from KRW 00,000,000, which was initially declared by the Plaintiffs; ④ the amount of the inheritance tax deduction should be increased to KRW 20,000,000,000, which was additionally paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant determined that the inheritance tax deduction of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a natural disaster; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) procedural defects

(A) Since the Defendant erred by failing to specify the grounds for calculating the amount of tax by inheritor at the time of the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(B) The disposition of this case is a disposition that can be conducted when there is an omission or error in the tax base or tax amount imposed by the taxpayer. The defendant made the disposition of this case on the ground of the internal circumstance that there is a conflict of opinion between the higher tax authorities with regard to the assessment method of inherited property, which does not fall under the grounds for correction. In addition, the defendant reversed the disposition of this case on the ground of the reversal of the disposition of inheritance tax (2 times

(2) substantial defect

(A) On the instant real estate (attached Form 1 Inheritance Tax Table 1)

The proviso of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that where a transaction contract has been concluded after the commencement of inheritance, the transaction value may be deemed the market value of the pertinent property. The Defendant considered the transaction value before the commencement of inheritance as the market value of the pertinent real estate. This is unlawful. In addition, the Defendant failed to prove that there was a special reason for price fluctuation after the transaction of the pertinent real estate, and it cannot be deemed that the form of the said real estate and the identity of the use thereof is maintained after the said transaction. Thus, the judgment that the previous transaction value of the instant real estate

(B) On the instant key financial assets (attached Form 1 Inheritance Tax Table 2)

The key financial assets of this case are not the deceased’s borrowed assets, but the assets inherent in BB and thisCC prior to the Plaintiff.

(C) On the issue of the instant case’s obligation (attached Form 1’s list of inheritance tax details)

At the time of commencement of inheritance, the deceased bears 000 won of the issue of this case at the Industrial Bank of Korea, and thus, the total amount of the above debt should be deducted from the value of the inherited property of this case. However, the defendant deducted only one-half of the above amount from the value of the inherited property of this case,

(D) On the spouse's inheritance deduction (attached Form 1 (attached Form 4)

The Defendant deemed 1/2 of the key debt of this case as the entire succession by Plaintiff BB, and deducted KRW 000 in calculating the spouse inheritance deduction. However, the key debt of this case is a household debt, which is naturally reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of the commencement of inheritance. Therefore, in calculating the amount of the spouse inheritance deduction, it is unlawful to deduct the said debt exceeding the statutory share of inheritance of Plaintiff BB in calculating the amount of

B. Relevant provisions

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination on procedural defects

(1) Whether the grounds for calculation of the tax amount by co-inheritors are specified

In full view of the purport of the written evidence Nos. 8 and 14 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the instant disposition on January 5, 2012, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the notice was attached to the tax notice and sent to each inheritor or testamentary donee a notice of inheritance tax and joint and several tax payment to be paid by the heir (200 won prior to the Plaintiff’sB, 00 won for the Plaintiff, 200 won for the Plaintiff, E00 won for the Plaintiff, E00 won for the Plaintiff), and the basis for the calculation thereof, etc., and that the above notice was served on each of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this part of the prior Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether competition causes violate the existence of competition grounds and legal stability

Article 76 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that the head of a tax office, etc. shall immediately investigate, determine, or correct the tax base and amount of tax in the event of omissions or errors in the tax base and amount of tax after the determination. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a disposition for correction can be made only when there are omissions or errors in the tax base and amount of tax reported by the taxpayer, as alleged by the plaintiffs. However, as seen below, inasmuch as there are no special circumstances such as price fluctuation between the transaction date and the appraisal base date of the pertinent real estate, and the form and use of the said real estate are different, the disposition for which the transaction value of the pertinent real estate shares was recognized as the market price as of the appraisal base of the real estate subject to taxation as of the assessment base date, and thus, it constitutes a case where there are errors in the tax base or amount of tax under Article 76 (4) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on substantive defects

(1) Whether the sales price of the instant real estate can be deemed as the market price

(A) Facts of recognition

1) On October 25, 2007, the Deceased and the Plaintiff JeonB concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant real estate from JF for KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2) After the death of the Deceased, the Plaintiffs declared the company’s share in the instant real estate as the standard market price pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

3) On July 19, 2011, the Defendant requested the Daejeon Regional Tax Office Evaluation Deliberation Committee to provide advice related to the market price of the pertinent real estate shares. The said Evaluation Deliberation Committee opened a meeting on August 24, 201, and pursuant to the proviso of Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 22(1) of the Directive, “The transaction price of the pertinent property may be deemed as the market price pursuant to the proviso of Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act,” and notified the Defendant of the result, the Defendant deemed 1/2 of the purchase price as the market price of the instant

4) The instant real estate is a neighborhood living facility due to registration injury, but in fact, it was used as a multi-household house from the time of sale to the time of the commencement of the instant inheritance, and thereafter was used as a multi-household house.

5) From 2007 to 2008, individual public notice price of the instant land has increased from 000 won per square meter to 000 won. The individual public notice price of the instant land has increased from 200 to 5.1%, and the individual public notice price of the instant land, which is neighboring the instant real estate, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 1618-48, and 1618-66, has increased by 5.0-5.3% during the said period.

6) Of the instant real estate, the land portion was designated as a Class 1 exclusive residential area from the time of sale to the present day. At the time of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office’s investigation, neighboring licensed real estate agents stated that there was no special circumstance of price fluctuation during the said period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1 to 5, 12, 13, Eul evidence 9 and 13, Eul evidence 6-6 to 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

(1) Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the market price of the property, which is the standard value of inherited property, shall be determined by the "market price as of the commencement date of inheritance". Article 60(2) of the same Act defines the meaning of "market price" as the price which is generally established when free transactions take place between many and unspecified persons. In addition, Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that, according to delegation by the mother Act, the issue of the sale, appraisal, expropriation, auction, or public sale of inherited property is stipulated as the subject transaction within 6 months before and after the base date of appraisal, and provides that the time limit for market price calculation and its target transaction are specified by the example of specific standard value in each subparagraph. However, if it is deemed that there is no special reason to believe that the sale and sale price of the property can be deemed the market price for the pertinent real estate after consultation with the Evaluation Committee, and that there is no difference between the sale and sale price of the property and the sale price of the property in the first place before the commencement date of inheritance.

(2) Whether the instant issue’s financial assets are the deceased’s borrowed-name assets

The following facts are acknowledged by the overall purport of Eul evidence 2-4 and Eul evidence 11 and the whole purport of the pleadings, and the following circumstances are confirmed: (i) the seal impression of the deceased is the Do Governor affixed to the passbook for the key financial assets of this case; (ii) the plaintiff JeonB submitted a confirmation document stating that the deceased's Do Governor was the deceased's seal impression in the passbook for the key financial assets of this case; and (iii) the issue of this case is that the financial assets of this case are unique assets of the plaintiff JeonB and thisCC because the deceased has no clear occupation; (iv) in light of the fact that the deceased acquired lease income of 207 through September 14, 1982 from the commencement date of inheritance to the date of 2008, the issue of this case is that the deceased's Do Governor was the deceased's seal impression; and (v) the plaintiff JeonB was the deceased's Do Governor's direct management of the borrowed financial assets of this case by November 25, 2010.

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, i.e., ① the deceased and the plaintiff JeonB filed a registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case with each of the 1/2 shares of December 2007, and on the same day, they set the right to collateral security of a maximum debt amount of KRW 000,000, and upon receiving a security loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea, they were liable for the key issue of this case. The above debt is deemed to have been used as a purchase fund for the above real estate acquired 1/2 shares of each of the deceased and the plaintiff JeonB after the death of the deceased. ② In light of the fact that the plaintiffs filed a registration of ownership transfer as a debt for inheritance of KRW 1/2 of the key issue of this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount actually borne by the deceased among the key issues of this case is limited to KRW 12/1200,000.

(4) Whether the amount of the legitimate spouse’s inheritance deduction can be determined

(A) Basic facts

1) According to the details reported on May 29, 2009 by the plaintiffs, the "property inherited by the plaintiff B" is calculated as follows.

2) In making the original disposition of this case, the Defendant determined that BB’s property inherited by the Plaintiff B was KRW 000,000, and that the amount equivalent to the statutory shares in the inheritance of BB prior to the Plaintiff was KRW 00,000, whichever was smaller, was recognized as the spouse inheritance deduction of BB prior to the Plaintiff.

3) The Defendant denied the spouse’s inheritance deduction exceeding 000 won on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not file a lawful report within the time limit for the split-off of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-3, 4, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

Article 19(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the amount actually inherited by a spouse due to the death of a resident shall be deducted from the taxable value," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the spouse's inheritance deduction shall be made pursuant to Paragraph (1) only when the spouse's inherited property is reported within six months (within six months from the date of commencement of the inheritance) from the day following the due date of reporting the tax base of inheritance under Article 67 (within six months from the due date of the inheritance (within six months from the date of the commencement of the inheritance)" and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "if the spouse has

However, the plaintiffs did not consult on the division of inherited property of this case, and thereafter did not report the spouse's inheritance among the above 275,481,890 won among the above 275,481,890 won, and the defendant did not report the spouse's inheritance. The defendant decided that the original disposition of this case, which decided that the non-reported financial assets of this case should be regarded as the assets actually acquired by the plaintiff B before and after the plaintiff, and that the spouse's inheritance deduction was unlawful and denied the spouse's inheritance deduction exceeding 00 won reported by the plaintiffs. As seen above, the plaintiff's spouse's inheritance deduction for the deceased's inherited property of this case, other than the financial assets of this case, which the plaintiffs reported by the plaintiffs, shall be 00 won and less than 00 won as seen above, can be deducted pursuant to Article 19 (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.