2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, as her husband’s LA died on June 12, 2006 (hereinafter “the commencement date of inheritance”), succeeded to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D1 Dong BB apartment 3 Dong 802 (hereinafter “instant BB apartment”) and the Dongjak-gu Seoul EE apartment 103 Dong 1702 (hereinafter “instantCC apartment”).

B. On December 8, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) calculated the value of the instant B Apartment as KRW 2,100,000,000 on the basis of the appraisal value obtained by requesting an appraisal corporation to conduct an appraisal of the market value; (b) calculated the value of the instant B Apartment as KRW 3,259,910,596; and (c) calculated the inheritance tax amount as KRW 321,32,814; and (d) filed an application for annual payment on the remainder of KRW 221,10,000,00 on the basis of the appraisal value based on the appraisal value acquired by requesting the appraisal corporation to conduct an appraisal; and (b) filed an application for annual payment on the amount of KRW 3,259,910,596

C. On March 12, 2009, the Defendant traded at KRW 2,200,000 on March 6, 2006, 702, such as the instant BB apartment (hereinafter referred to as “B apartment”) with KRW 2,200,000 on March 6, 2006. On the ground that the instant apartment was traded at KRW 1104,104 (hereinafter referred to as “CC apartment”) within the same complex as the instantCC apartment was traded at KRW 980,00,00 on June 3, 206, the Defendant revised the market price of the instant BB apartment andCC apartment as KRW 2,200,000,000, KRW 980,000,000, KRW 152,002,00,000, including the amount of inheritance tax calculated by subtracting the Plaintiff’s total amount of inheritance tax from the amount of inheritance tax calculated by annual payment, KRW 397,2979,74757,7.700 (hereinafter referred to include the amount of inheritance tax.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

The market value of each apartment of the above appraisal corporation at the time the inheritance date commences should be recognized as the market value of each apartment of the above apartment. The sales value of comparative BB, andCC apartment cannot be deemed as the market value of each apartment of this case due to the following reasons. Thus, the defendant reported the sales value of comparative B andCC apartment at the market price of each apartment of this case to the market value of each apartment of this case shall be revoked as unlawful.

(1) In the case of BB apartment in the same size as the instant BB apartment, and in the case of the adjacent BB apartment, the FF bank market price fluctuation list from March 2006 to September 2006, the general average price of which was KRW 2,275,00,000 from around KRW 1,90,000 to KRW 285,00,000. However, in fact, the BB apartment 7 Dong 103 was 2,060,000 on March 24, 2006 and the BB apartment 6 Dong 104 on September 14, 2006, it cannot be objectively reflected in the sales price of the instant apartment at the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

(2) While the general average price from around June 2006 to September 2006 increased from KRW 885,00,000 to KRW 35,000,000, the actual sales price during the above period is not only a decline in the sales price for the above period, but the comparativeCC apartment cannot be said to objectively reflect the sales price of the comparableCC apartment more than 16.02 square meters compared to the instantCC apartment on its internal structure by expanding the balcony.

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

(1) In full view of Article 60(1) main text and Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “the Act”), and Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19899 of Feb. 8, 2007; hereinafter the same), the value of the property subject to inheritance tax shall be the market value as of the date of commencing the inheritance, and the market value shall be the value which is generally recognized as having been usually established where there is a transaction fact with respect to the pertinent property between many and unspecified persons for a period not exceeding 6 months before or after the date of commencing the inheritance. On the other hand, the sale value, etc. of the pertinent property is also considered as the market value of the pertinent property.

(2) As to the instant case, the following facts are acknowledged according to the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, as follows: (a) health class; (b) evidence mentioned above; (c) evidence set forth in Section 5-14; and (d) evidence set forth in Section

① The dialogue appraisal corporation, which was requested by the Plaintiff, assessed the value of the instant BB andCC apartment as KRW 2,100,000,000, and KRW 900,000,000, respectively, on November 14, 2006, respectively, on the basis of the purpose of appraisal as a collateral for each bank and reporting at a tax office with respect to the instant B andCC apartment.

② The same area of each apartment in the same complex as the apartment in this case, the contract date, the sale price, the standard market price of April 28, 2006, etc. of the apartment in the same structure as the apartment in this case are set forth below.

③ From March 2006 to November 2006, the same size, structure BB, andCC apartment prices in the same complex as each of the instant apartments described in the FF Bank Market Price fluctuation Schedule are as follows:

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the following circumstances, it is deemed that the sales amount of each apartment unit subject to comparison, which is the same or similar property as the art of this case, and the size, location, number of floors, structure, etc., is reasonable to view the sales amount of each apartment unit of this case, as the price acknowledged as normal in the event that each apartment unit of this case was freely traded between many and unspecified persons at the time of commencing the inheritance. The appraisal value of the said appraisal corporation was appraised on November 14, 2006 at the time of commencing the inheritance or on November 14, 2006, but the value was lower than the FF Bank Real Estate Tax Information at the time of commencing the inheritance (this was prepared to be used as the standard for real estate mortgage loan, and there is a tendency to lower than the actual market value) of each apartment unit of this case at the time of commencing the inheritance.

① The comparable BB apartment is located in the same Dong as the BB apartment in this case, but its size, use, and structure are identical. At the time of January 1, 2006, even though the standard market price was lower than the BB apartment in this case, the apartment was traded in 2,200,000 on March 6, 2006, and out of that apartment was sold in excess of 2,200,000 among the apartments in the same area as the BB apartment in this case.

② The comparativeCC apartment is located adjacent to the instantCC apartment, and the number of floors is different, but the area, use, and structure are identical. As of January 1, 2006, the standard market price was the same as the instantCC apartment. On June 3, 2006, the apartment was traded in the purchase price of KRW 980,000,000, and other apartments located above 10 stories among those located in the same complex as the instantCC apartment were sold in excess of 980,000,000 among those located in the same area as the instant apartment.

③ The market price of the BB andCC apartment in the same complex, such as the instant BB andCC apartment, has continuously increased since March 2006.

④ Even if the comparativeCC apartment expandss the balcony and its internal utilization area is greater than the instantCC apartment, it does not reach the degree that the area, location, and usage of the instantCC apartment does not differ, and such circumstance is merely an additional construction cost, and thus cannot be deemed to have a significant impact on the market price of the said apartment.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the sales price of each apartment unit subject to comparison as the market price of each apartment unit of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.