(b) a relationship between the defective disposition of inheritance tax imposition and the effect of such notice;

B. In a case where the determination of inheritance tax amount itself is erroneous, the defect of the determination is not cured because the effect of notification of inheritance tax to one family heir under Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578, Dec. 21, 1982) and Article 19(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act extends to all co-inheritors. Thus, the determination of inheritance tax amount in full to one co-inheritors and the imposition of inheritance tax notified is unlawful regardless of the validity of notification.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that since the non-party died on December 21, 1979 and succeeded to his property jointly by seven persons, including the plaintiff, South Korea, and the defendant calculated the inheritance tax base as 51,320,000 won and notified the plaintiff of the total amount of inheritance tax by marking the taxpayer on February 2, 1985 as non-party 6, after calculating the inheritance tax base as 16,590,400,318,080 won and the defense tax base as 3,318,080 won, the court below determined that the whole amount of inheritance tax was revoked within the scope of the inheritance tax in excess of the self-owned portion of the plaintiff's own person, among the defendant's taxation, since all of the tax disposition in this case shows that all of the tax disposition in this case was conducted against the plaintiff, it was an unlawful disposition that did not specify the amount of tax to be borne by the plaintiff pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act.

Article 18(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2319, Dec. 28, 1971) provides that an inheritor is obligated to pay inheritance tax according to the ratio of possession of an inherited property received or to be received by each person among inherited property. Thus, the Plaintiff and other inheritors are obligated to pay inheritance tax in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance.

Therefore, in order to impose inheritance tax, the Defendant must determine and notify the amount of inheritance tax according to the inherited portion of each inheritor, and should not impose the total amount of inheritance tax on the inheritor. However, according to Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3578 of Dec. 21, 1982), Article 19(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 25-2 of the same Act provides that when determining inheritance tax, only the family heir is notified of the decision and notification to all the inheritors shall have the effect of notification. However, since the determination of inheritance tax amount itself affects all the inheritors, the defect of the decision is not cured, the Defendant’s disposition imposing inheritance tax cannot be deemed unlawful regardless of the validity of the notification.

The lower court’s revocation of the Defendant’s taxation disposition within the scope sought by the Plaintiff is justifiable and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)