2. On March 11, 2002, the part of the disposition of KRW 349,021,269 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on December 26, 2002 and the portion exceeding each tax amount set forth in the item column of the due tax amount by the heir shall be revoked. The part of the disposition of KRW 349,021,269 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on December 26, 2002, which exceeds each tax amount set forth in the item of the pertinent tax amount by the heir.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be five minutes and four minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

1. Each disposition of KRW 275,466,613 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 1, 1996 as to the Plaintiff and the return of KRW 1,365,026,97 of the inheritance tax and the return of KRW 275,46,613 of the inheritance tax, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. Each disposition of KRW 401,79,056 on February 23, 200, imposed by the Defendant against Madhee, Madhee, Madhee, Madhee, and Madles, respectively, shall be revoked.

3. Each disposition of KRW 349,021,269 of the inheritance tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 11, 2002 and KRW 246,641,69 of the inheritance tax, which was issued against the Plaintiff on December 26, 2002 by the Defendant on December 26, 2002, is revoked. Each disposition of KRW 349,021,269 of the inheritance tax, which was issued against the Plaintiff on December 11, 2002, is revoked.

4. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 860,034,930 as to the Plaintiff, etc. on April 10, 2002 shall be revoked.

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements as stated in Gap's evidence as provided in subparagraphs 1 through 3, 11 through 18, 22, 31, 41, 44 through 53, Eul's evidence as provided in subparagraphs 1 through 31, 49 through 57:

(1) On November 13, 1993, 1993, Maghee (hereinafter the Deceased) reported the inheritance tax base of KRW 671,062,860 to the Defendant on behalf of the heir on May 12, 1994, 171,062,860 of the inheritance tax, which was calculated by applying the inheritance tax base of KRW 4,073,668,00 on behalf of the heir, was voluntarily paid KRW 170,00 among them, and filed an application for payment in annual installments for the remaining tax amount.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant added KRW 16,650,075 to the vehicle transport vehicle transport equipment, KRW 589,79,364 to the amount omitted in filing a return on deposit, KRW 1,203,834,472 to the business property, and KRW 162,89,59 to the business property, KRW 162,89,599 to the liabilities, and KRW 158,97,183 to the public charges, respectively, to the tax base of KRW 8,229,26,37 to the heir, etc.; and the total determined tax amount of KRW 3,325,402,21 to the remainder after deducting KRW 170,00,000 from the total tax amount of KRW 170,50,402,211 to the tax amount of KRW 3,15,402,211 to the total tax amount of KRW 16,196 to the heir, etc. (hereinafter the first notice).).

(3) In filing an objection against the above disposition, the director of Daegu Regional Tax Office added the spouse deduction amount, and decided to additionally deduct the resident tax (1,924,788 won and 3,837,172 won) to be paid by the deceased as of the date of commencing the inheritance. Accordingly, the defendant corrected the amount of KRW 27,724,094 out of the total notified tax amount (the total notified tax amount was KRW 3,127,678,117; hereinafter the same shall apply), but did not notify the plaintiff et al. thereof (it cannot be known that the amount of the first correction was reduced by the heir) (the amount of the total notified tax amount was 3,127,678,117 won).

(4) The Defendant revised the amount of KRW 21,489,30 on May 4, 1998, on the premise of the first correction disposition on May 4, 1998 (the total notified tax amount became KRW 3,149,167,414) on the ground that only the difference between the notified tax amount due to the first correction disposition and the heir was specified by specifying only the difference between the notified tax amount due to the first correction and the notified tax amount due to the second correction of the attached specifications as stated in the second correction of the attached specifications (hereinafter the second correction disposition).

(5) In the appeal filed by the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. added 17,471,23 won to the inheritance obligation (business obligation), and the additional amount of KRW 1,81,972,71 to the gift amount of KRW 1,871 shall be excluded from the application of the inheritance tax and the decision to re-calculated the inheritance tax amount by inheritor according to the agreement division of the inherited property was defective. The defendant corrected the total amount of tax notified on September 30, 1998 to KRW 2,323,979,105 (the amount of total tax notified to the plaintiff and party, and the remaining amount of tax increased to the heir) but did not notify the plaintiff et al. on February 23, 200 (the amount of tax assessed to the plaintiff et al. al., the amount of tax assessed to the plaintiff et al., the total amount of tax assessed to the heir 182,200 square meters of the above inherited property (the third party correction disposition).

(7) After that, the defendant recognized the amount of KRW 1,50,000, which was deducted as an inheritance obligation at the time of the above 4th correction, as an obligation to pay the amount of capital gains tax to be paid by the decedent with respect to the obligation to pay the amount of capital gains tax, the amount of capital gains tax to be paid by the decedent shall be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax by additionally deducting KRW 630,979,610, and the amount of capital gains tax to be paid by the decedent with respect to the obligation to pay the amount of capital gains tax shall be reduced by 435,723,901, and the amount of inheritance tax shall be reduced by 3,369,390,130,000 (the total amount of tax notified by the heir shall be reduced by 3,369,390,130,000). On May 1, 202, only the difference between the previous amount of tax notified by the plaintiff, etc. (the amount of tax reduced by heir)

(8) After that, the defendant recognized that the resident tax related to the transfer income tax, which was deducted from the public charge of the deceased at the time of the above fifth correction, is a public charge to be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and deducted 63,09,264 won from the total amount of tax by additionally deducting 63,09,264 won from the taxable amount of inheritance tax (Therefore, the total notified tax amount became 3,319,380,866 won, and the total amount of tax to be deducted for all inheritors). On May 6, 202, the plaintiff et al. notified the plaintiff et al. of the difference between the previous notified tax amount and the total amount of tax to be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax (hereinafter referred to as the "sixth correction

(9) After that, the defendant found that capital gains tax to be borne by the ancestor was deducted as a public charge at the time of the above 5,63,271, which was not subject to deduction, and that the amount of excess of KRW 15,774,490, which was not subject to deduction, was corrected. The defendant decided to fully deduct KRW 1,502,775,662, as the plaintiff asserted through the lawsuit in this case, to reduce the total amount of KRW 167,839,60,03 (the total amount of notified tax was 3,151,541,263,000,000 won) out of the total amount of tax (the total amount of tax to be deducted for the plaintiff and the remaining inheritors) and notified the plaintiff, etc. on September 23, 2002, only the difference between the previous detailed statement of notified tax amount and the total amount of tax to be imposed, as stated in the column of the tax amount notified in the annexed Table 7.

(10) After that, in making the correction of the above 5 through 7, the defendant notified on December 26, 2002 that "the inheritance tax amount and the joint and several tax obligor to be paid by each heir or testamentary donee," in which the amount of tax to be imposed by each heir is specified, to find out the omission of the specific amount of tax to be imposed by each heir and to supplement the defects thereof, and the amount of tax to be imposed by each heir listed in the notification shall be as listed in the corresponding column for each heir by each heir in the annexed specifications 5 through 7 correction.

B. Disposition of this case

In the case of a reduction and correction disposition, this is merely a partial revocation (revision) of the original disposition, not an original one separate from a separate one, but merely a partial revocation (revision) of the original disposition. Moreover, in the case of a reduction and correction disposition, the portion exceeding the original tax base and tax amount in the original disposition is not a new determination, but a new independent tax disposition is imposed because it is included in the original disposition and the tax base and tax amount are determined again as a whole in accordance with the results proved by a reinvestigation, not a new determination of the original tax base and tax amount in the original disposition, and the initial disposition is extinguished by absorbing the increased and decreased disposition.

Therefore, according to the circumstances leading up to the correction of the above disposition, the disposition of imposition existing in relation to the inheritance tax of this case shall be deemed to be the disposition of this case, the disposition of the fourth correction as of March 11, 2002, the last correction as of March 11, 2002, the date of the first correction as to the plaintiff (the subsequent correction is both a reduction and a decrease), and the remaining inheritors as of December 26, 2002, the seventh correction disposition as of December 23, 2002 (the correction as of September 23, 2002), but the notification of specific amount of tax by the inheritors is made as of December 26, 202, and thus, the above disposition shall be deemed

The tax amount of the instant disposition on the heir, including the Plaintiff, shall be the same as the tax amount of the instant disposition on the detailed statement of imposition.

2. As to each claim described in paragraphs 1, 2, and 2

The disposition for which the Plaintiff sought revocation under paragraphs 1. and 2. of the claim is the original disposition and the third correction disposition, and as seen above, it is unlawful for this part of the lawsuit, since all of them were extinguished (i.e., absorption of the subsequent correction disposition) and did not exist.

3. As to the claim No. 4. Claim

As to the inheritance tax of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the additional dues and increased additional dues collected by the Defendant in relation to the inheritance tax of this case are determined and collected on the basis of the deadline for payment set in the original disposition. If a revised disposition is issued, a new disposition is imposed on the whole amount of the tax to be imposed at the time of the disposition. As such, the additional dues collection disposition premised on the initial tax payment period becomes invalid, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for revocation of such collection disposition.

On the other hand, if the increase or decrease in the tax imposition disposition is made, the payment period set in the initial disposition becomes null and void, and accordingly, the collection disposition premised on the payment period set in the initial disposition becomes null and void retroactively without any cause (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13139 delivered on May 11, 199). However, Article 22-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an increase in the amount of tax initially confirmed under the provisions of tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts concerning the amount of tax initially determined," but the above provision is only applicable to the portion that was revised after the enforcement of the amended Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Tax Basic Act, which was amended by Act No. 6782 delivered on December 18, 2002, and thus, it does not apply to the instant disposition).

However, in a case where the collection disposition becomes null and void even if the additional dues and aggravated additional dues are already paid in full due to the collection disposition, it is possible to seek a return of the objection directly as unjust enrichment under the civil law. Thus, there is no benefit in a lawsuit seeking nullification as an administrative litigation. This does not change on the ground that the purport of seeking invalidation declaration is seeking a revocation of disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15271 delivered on June 9, 1995).

However, the fact that there is no amount of tax unpaid as of the date of closing argument of this case by paying both the additional dues and increased additional dues that the Plaintiff seeks to revoke and that there is no dispute between the parties, which eventually is unlawful.

4. As to the claim No. 3. Claims

This case’s taxation disposition is lawful, and this case’s taxation disposition is considered lawful, in turn, against the Defendant’s arguments.

A. As to the Defendant’s principal safety defense that the period for filing a lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit are unlawful

The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case on December 7, 1998 against the remaining inheritors, including the plaintiff, seeking revocation of the disposition of this case. The remaining inheritors except the plaintiff, who withdrawn the lawsuit and sought revocation of the disposition of this case on November 14, 2001. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the remaining inheritors by expanding the purport of the claim on November 14, 2001. Thus, the lawsuit against the remaining inheritors can be deemed to have been filed only when the above purport of the claim is extended. In light of the time interval between the initial time of the filing of the lawsuit and the initial time of the lawsuit, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition against the remaining inheritors except the Plaintiff was issued for the seventh correction disposition as of December 26, 2002, and this disposition was issued after the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition against the remaining inheritors due to the expansion of the claim on November 14, 2001, which is, after the Plaintiff sought a revocation of the disposition of imposition against the remaining inheritors. Thus, the issue of whether the period of filing the first lawsuit is excessive is difficult.

Therefore, it may be problematic whether the defendant's defense of this kind of defense is groundless (However, in such a case, it may be said that the plaintiff had gone through the procedure of a prior trial on the above new correction disposition upon the request of the principle of a prior trial on administrative appeals, but all the grounds for the plaintiff's defense are common to the previous and previous correction disposition, and it has gone through the procedure of prior trial on the previous correction disposition. Therefore, it is not necessary to go through the procedure of prior trial on the

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition becomes null and void after the extinctive prescription expires

With respect to the disposition of this case against the plaintiff, the amount of inheritance tax was notified to the plaintiff at the time of the third correction, and the disposition of this case was revoked in its entirety, and the amount of 1,561,059,866 won was imposed again on March 11, 202 due to the fourth correction disposition on March 11, 2002 (the amount of 1,159,793,219 won was finally reduced later). Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is null and void, since the extinctive prescription of 5 years has already expired at the time of the above correction disposition.

However, the extinctive prescription is to extinguish the obligation to pay the tax already determined by the disposition of imposition, and it can only serve as a ground for extinguishment of the right to impose tax, and it cannot serve as a ground for extinguishment of the right to impose tax (see Articles 26, 27, and 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), so there is no relation with the legality of the disposition of collection and there is no relation with the legality of the disposition of imposition. However, since the right to impose the inheritance tax should be exercised within the exclusion period of ten years from the time when the right to impose the inheritance tax can be imposed, a disposition of imposition after the lapse of the exclusion period of the right to impose tax is null and void. However, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is issued on November 13, 1993 at the time when the inheritance begins, and it cannot be deemed that the exclusion period has expired.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the procedure for duty payment notice is unlawful

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the defendant merely stated the "non-party 6" in the notice of tax payment at the time of the initial disposition and did not indicate the names of the plaintiff or other inheritors. Thus, the plaintiff's notice of the non-party - in the case of the fourth corrective disposition is illegal, and therefore, the disposition of this case based on these disposition is not only illegal but also illegal, and the plaintiff did not notify only the total amount of tax at the time of the disposition of this case and did not notify the specific amount of tax for each inheritor

In the case of the initial disposition first, according to Gap's evidence No. 1-1, a tax payment notice is merely stated as taxpayer and 6, and the name of the other inheritors except for the purpose of locking is recognized as having not been specified. On the other hand, according to each of the above evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the "written invoice for distribution of inheritance tax by inheritor" and "written statement for shares by joint and several tax obligor" attached to the tax payment notice include the entire successor's name, address, resident registration number, and the tax amount imposed on each inheritor is specified. Thus, as stated in the attached document, the tax payment notice is deemed to have been imposed on each inheritor, and the inheritance tax has been imposed on each inheritor. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unlawful.

Next, in the case of the fourth correction disposition, as seen above, the remaining inheritors except the plaintiff were notified of the difference between the previous tax amount and the previous tax amount in the notification of the defendant, although there is no reason to regard such notification as erroneous (referring to the fourth correction of the detailed statement of imposition). In such a case, the amount of the disposition tax can be deemed as either the amount calculated by adding or deducting the notified tax amount from the previous tax amount, so it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Finally, in the case of the disposition of this case, the defendant notified only the total amount of tax at the time of the initial notification and did not separately notify each inheritor of the specific amount of tax at the time of the initial notification (see paragraphs (1) (7) through (9) of the same Article) but on December 26, 2002, which was 2 months after the final correction disposition, the defendant notified the "the list of the inheritance tax and the joint and several liable for tax payment to be paid by inheritor or testamentary donee" in which the amount of tax to be imposed by inheritor is specified to supplement the same mistake (see paragraph (1) (10) of the same Article), and such mistake is deemed to have been cured.

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

D. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the tax base

(1) Related to the wrapping machine, etc.

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

In the disposition of this case, the Defendant sold 2nd class 27,870,665 won in sweet 2nd 65,119,396 won in sweet 2nd 65,119,396 won in cweet 2nd 15,046,348 won in cweet 18,00 won in cweet 6th 193 before the commencement of the inheritance, which is included in the inherited property, not inherited property.

(B) Determination

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 12-2, Eul evidence 12-6 and evidence 12-6 of the court below's testimony of the court below, and the witness Cho Jin-jin's testimony of the court of first instance, it was 4 of the first walking (2 of 1974, 1986, 1, 1987, 1987). Among them, 2 of 1974, it was 18,00,00 won around October 6, 1993 before the commencement of the inheritance. Thus, in the disposition of this case, the defendant still registered the above walking's 192 accounting book (3 of 1992 evidence No. 6 of the court of first instance) with the acquisition value of the above 3 years walking's 196 acquisition value on the 196th 7th 6th 196th 74, 197.

However, according to the above evidence, scambling or crying is a specific part or part that combines the scambling with the scambling machine and plays its function, and as above, scambling or crying attached to scambling to scambling in 1974 when selling 2 scamblings to scambling in 1974 to scambling, but in the meantime, it is recognized that the scambling 2 to 65,119,396, scambling scambling that the defendant included in the inherited property in the disposition of this case (which is separately stated under the same account book) is different property from that disposed of to scambling in light of the acquisition year and acquisition value, so the plaintiff's assertion on this part is groundless.

(2) Regarding the internal facilities of the king factory

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

43,026,127 won (3 boiler 16,397,894 won, water supply lamps 1,263,201 won, incineration KRW 2,915,354 won, electric facilities 4,527,745 won, fire fighting facilities 17,921,93 won) of the internal structure of the king factory was already imposed on November 11, 1993, since the gift tax was already imposed on the property that the deceased donated to the plaintiff, the amount equivalent to the facility value is further included in the taxable value of inherited property.

(B) Determination

There is no evidence to acknowledge that water supply lamps, incineration, etc. installed at the king factory was donated to the Plaintiff or included in the gift value at the time of imposing gift tax. Rather, in full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 47-1, 2, 6, and 48, the whole purport of the pleadings in the gift contract between the deceased and the Plaintiff was not mentioned as to the attached facilities on the donation contract between the deceased and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not enter the attached facilities in the list of donated property at around May 194, and the Defendant also recognized the fact that the attached facilities were not added to the gift value at the time of imposing gift tax on the factory building, so this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

(3) The wage and retirement allowance of the king workers

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

As of November 13, 1993, the date of commencing the inheritance, 102,917,140 won of retirement allowance of workers at Wanghy, and 35,921,250 won of unpaid wages, and 35,921,250 won of unpaid wages, are the deceased’s obligations to be deducted from the taxable value of the inherited property

(B) Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 23-1, 2, 28-1, 5, and 32-33 of the evidence Nos. 23-1, 35,921,250, and the estimated amount of retirement pay, which is 102,917,140, can be acknowledged. Thus, since the total amount of the debt Nos. 138,838,290 should be deducted from the taxable value of inherited property, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is with merit.

In this regard, the defendant's estimated amount of retirement allowance is calculated at the rate of wages for 1 year and 30 days corresponding to that of all workers who were employed in king at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Since some of the workers did not have the obligation to pay retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act because the period of service has not yet been one year since the commencement of the inheritance, this part is not subject to deduction.

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, it can be acknowledged that all workers whose continuous service period is less than one year have continued to work in king after the commencement of the inheritance and the continuous service period is more than one year. In this case, even if the continuous service period was not more than one year at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it is reasonable to deduct the amount equivalent to the retirement allowance for the continuous service period up to one year as a debt. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(4) With respect to removal from office

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

6, 102,00,000 won for the direct manufacture of direct substances (SHR-300), which the Defendant considered as a business asset of the king and included in the inherited property, was purchased by the Plaintiff as a business asset of the king’s separate business chain operated by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not inherited property.

(B) Determination

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the court below's witness kynasty is good, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge it only by the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 20, 24, 25, 68 through 76, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the whole purport of arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, and 3, the seller of the above titles issued a tax invoice on the condition that the deceased was supplied at the time of sale, and the deceased reported the above titles to the Korean Long-term Credit Bank and received a loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported the value-added tax as the business entity of the kynasty after the death of the deceased, and the plaintiff reported the purchase of the above titles to purchase them on the ground that the purchase of the above titles constitutes the facility investment of the kynas. Thus, it is justified to deem this part of the plaintiff's assertion to this effect as inherited property.

(5) National tax refund related

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, due to the cancellation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax imposed and paid in the name of the deceased before the deceased’s death, deemed the refund of the national tax refund of 404,901,497 on September 13, 1995 as inherited property and included it in the taxable value. However, since the Plaintiff was paid on behalf of the deceased, it should not be included in the taxable value.

(B) Determination

Since taxes imposed and paid in the name of the deceased were refunded upon cancellation of the disposition of imposition, the refund must be reverted to the deceased, which constitutes inherited property.

However, if the plaintiff paid the tax on behalf of the deceased as asserted by the plaintiff, and as a result, the deceased bears the corresponding loan obligation against the plaintiff at the time of commencing the inheritance, the debt should be deducted from the inherited property. However, the statement on the evidence Nos. 36 through 39 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of the plaintiff's substitute payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the plaintiff paid it on behalf of the deceased, it is difficult to view that the deceased was liable to the plaintiff for the loan corresponding to the substitute payment, in light of the relationship with the deceased, etc., even if the plaintiff paid it on behalf of the deceased, it is difficult to view that the deceased had

(6) relating to the amount of 205,000,000 won from a financial institution

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to KRW 85,00,000, which was withdrawn on January 28, 1993 by the Deceased on June 25, 1993, and KRW 120,00,000 (total amount of KRW 205,00,000,00,000) that was withdrawn on June 25, 25 of the same year, the Defendant added the amount to inherited property pursuant to Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act on the ground that the purpose of use is unclear as financial assets that were withdrawn within two years of commencement of inheritance. However, even if the amount was compared with all of the amount deposited and withdrawn within two years of commencement of inheritance by the Deceased, it cannot be deemed that there was disposal property as stipulated in the above provision of the Inheritance Tax Act. Moreover, the amount of the withdrawal is presumed to have been directly used by the Deceased in light of its amount or the content of the deceased’s business, and thus, it is erroneous as it is within the scope of the amount excluded from inherited property value.

(B) Determination

Article 7-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; 1.00; 2001Du9813, Apr. 23, 2002; 2002; 2001Du9813, Apr. 23, 2002; 2007; 201Du8813, Apr. 23, 2002; 2001; 201Du813, Apr. 23, 2002; 202; 202. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 2. 2. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.

However, in comparison with the amount of the deposit account (including the amount of the withdrawal in this case) and the amount of the deposit account (including the amount of the withdrawal in this case) of the deceased, which the defendant presented as the deposit account of the deceased (the account shown in the evidence Nos. 59 through 90) and all of the amount of the deceased's deposit account (the amount of the above evidence No. 55 through 64 overlaps with the above evidence No. 55), it can be acknowledged that the amount of the deposit is more than the amount of the deposit (the amount of the plaintiff's deposit is more than the amount of KRW 78,626,308, and the defendant claims that the amount of the deposit is more than the amount of the deposit, but there is no difference between the amount of the deposit and the amount of the deposit. However, there is no argument or proof that the amount of the deposit is separately created regardless of the amount of the amount of the deposit, and it cannot be seen that the amount of the deposit account of the deceased remains more than the amount of the deposit account before the commencement of the inheritance.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

(e) Calculation of a legitimate tax amount;

(a) Value of inherited property: 6,369,632,473 won; and

The value of the inherited property at the time of the instant disposition is calculated by deducting KRW 27,870,665 from the amount of KRW 6,397,503,138, the value of the inherited property at the time of the instant disposition.

(2) Additional amount under Article 7-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act: zero won

D. (6) The withdrawal of this case is not considered as the disposal value.

(3) The aggregate amount of donation under Article 4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act: 2,701,792,771 won;

The disposition of this case is identical to the disposition of this case.

(d) Amount deducted under Article 4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act: 1,205,696,284 won;

The sum of the deductible amount of KRW 1,066,857,94 recognized at the time of the instant disposition plus KRW 138,838,290, such as the wage, etc. under Paragraph (d)(3) above.

(e) Total taxable value: 7,865,728,960 won (=1) + (2) + (3) - (4))

(6) The ratio of possession of the inherited property by inheritor

The value of each heir’s property recognized at the time of the instant disposition is KRW 434,935,731, Plaintiff 4,714,133,860, 100, 177,000,000, and KRW 617,673,665, respectively, of the 197,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

However, among the above things, 27,870,665 won and 138,838,290 won, such as wages for workers, etc., are assessed as the Plaintiff’s possession property donated to king. The withdrawn amount of 205,00,000 won in this case is assessed as being possessed by each inheritor in proportion to the statutory shares of inheritance (the statutory shares of inheritance are 3/15,000,000 won, and the remaining inheritors are 2/15, respectively. Accordingly, the possession value of the regular shares of this part is 41,00,000 won, and the possession value of the remaining inheritors is 27,33,3333,333 won, from the above possession value of each inheritor’s possession property. Thus, when deducting each corresponding amount from the above amount, the legitimate value of each heir’s possession property and the ratio of possession are as follows:

* Fixed guard: 393,935,731 won (=434,935,731 won - 41,000,000 won)

Ratio of 5% (=393,935,731 won/7,865,728,960)

* Plaintiff: 4,520,091,572 won (=4,714,133,860 won - 27,870,665 won - 138,838,290 won - 27,33,333 won)

Ratio of 57.5% (=4,520,091,572 Won/7,865,728,960)

* Man-hee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, and Mascarz: Each value of KRW 590,340,332 (=617,673,665 - 27,33,333)

Each ratio of 7.5% (=590,340,332 won/7,865,728,960)

(g) Amount of deduction: Basic deduction of KRW 60,000,000, personal deductions of KRW 546,000,000;

The disposition of this case is identical to the disposition of this case.

(h) Tax base: 7,259,728,960 won (=(5) - (7))

(9) Calculated tax amount: 3,770,850,928 won (=328,00,000 won + [8)-1,000,000 won] x 0.55];

(10) The calculated tax amount by each heir;

* Regulars: 188,542,546 won (=3,770,850,928 won) x 0.05)

* Plaintiff: 2,168,239,282 won (=3,770,850,928 won x 0.575)

* Voluntary Pest, Pest, Restest, Restest, Restan, Restan, Restan and Restan: 282,813,820 won, respectively (=3,70,850,928 won x 0.075)

(11) Deduction: 1,814,435 won

(1) Tax base reported: 4,073,668,00 won (Evidence 1-1)

(2) Excessive reported amount of inherited property: 4,226,00 won (the time of initial disposal) for the excessive appraised value of the building.

(3) Underreporting the deductible amount: 901,769,244 won.

The amount of KRW 162,89,59, capital gains tax of KRW 158,97,183, KRW 11,924,78, and KRW 387,172, and KRW 17,471,223, and capital gains tax of KRW 630,979,610, KRW 63,97,960, and KRW 63,00,00,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00.

(4) Tax base for a return recognized: 3,167,672,756 won [i]

(5) The calculated tax amount on the tax base to be reported: 1,520,220,015 won = 328,00,000 won + (No.48,000,000) x 0.55)

(6) Amount offered: 1,502,075,662 won (amount of gift tax already paid)

(n) No. - (6) x 0.1 1,814,435 won

(8) The amount of tax reported by each heir.

* Regulars: 90,721 won (=1,814,435 won x 0.05)

* Plaintiff: 1,043,299 won (=1,814,435 won x 0.575)

* Voluntary Pest, Shee, Shee, Shee, Manam-style, and Scarz: 136,083 won, respectively (=1,814,435 won x 0.075)

(12) Deduction of gift tax already paid: 1,502,075,662 won

The disposition of this case is identical to the disposition of this case.

(13) Total amount of final tax: 2,266,960,831 won (=9) - (11) - (12)

(14) The determined tax amount by each heir.

* Stackers: 188,451,825 won [=(10) - (11)]

* Plaintiff: 65,120,321 won [=(10) - (11) - Act No. 11]

* Voluntary Retirement, Hashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, and Mascar, respectively: 282,677,737 won (=(10) - (11) - 11)

(15) Aggregate of penalty taxes for failure in filing a return: 381,293,934

(1) The amount of inheritance tax calculated: 3,770,850,928 won (= (9)

(2) Tax base for determination: 7,259,728,960 won (= (8)

(3) Base for return recognized: 3,167,672,756 won (=(11). No.448)

(4) Those not deemed the tax base for not-reported: 404,901,497 won.

In the above D. (5), the national tax refund was determined on September 13, 1995 after the commencement date of the inheritance (e.g., cancellation thereof), and thus, it was not possible to report it at the original return of inheritance. Moreover, the part for which a successor, who is the deadline for filing an inheritance tax return, became final and conclusive after six months from the commencement date of the inheritance, is not subject to an inheritance tax return or a revised return, and thus, does not criticize the heir on the ground that the heir did not report or revised return (in the case of trade, the imposition of additional tax would be exempted if a revised return is filed, and does not have an obligation of a revised return). Accordingly, it is correct to exclude this part from the tax base of a non-reported return, since there is a justifiable reason for not imposing additional tax due to a

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the amount of gift tax should be excluded from the unreported tax base as determined by the National Tax Tribunal at the time of the third correction [see subparagraph 1 (a) (5)]. This part of this part shall also be excluded from the unreported additional tax. However, if the National Tax Tribunal did not report the gift tax, and the additional tax is imposed on the additional tax on the property to be added to the taxable value of the inheritance when the return of the inheritance tax is filed, and if the additional tax is again imposed on the donated property, it would result in the imposition of double additional tax on the same donated property (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1361 delivered on July 25, 1997). In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 80 as well as the purport of oral argument, it is correct to include the plaintiff in the calculation of the additional tax in this part of this case, since the initial imposition disposition related to the above donated property changed on April 11, 2002, and finally, the plaintiff's assertion that this part of the additional tax cannot be recognized.

(5) Amount of return below the tax base: 3,687,154,707 won (=2 = - - (3))

(6) No. 】 (n.b) 】 0.2 = 383,036,634 won.

However, the penalty tax imposed at the time of the instant disposition is less than the penalty tax imposed at KRW 381,293,934, which is less than the penalty tax imposed at the time of the instant disposition, and in such a case, the penalty tax is separate from the principal tax, and thus, even if the amount of the principal tax is reduced as a whole due to the reduction of the legitimate amount of the principal tax, it cannot be increased more disadvantageous than the initial disposition. Therefore, the penalty tax imposed at the time of the instant disposition should be recognized only as KRW 381,293,934.

(7) Additional taxes for failure to file a report by each heir.

* Regulars: 19,064,697 won (=381,293,934 won x 0.05)

* Plaintiff: 219,244,012 won (=381,293,934 won x 0.575)

* Voluntary Retirement, Hashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mascar, and Mascar: 28,597,045 won, respectively (=381,293,934 won x 0.075)

(16) Aggregate of penalty taxes for insincere payment: 478,769,391

(1) Additional tax payable by tax amount: 159,589,797 won (=(13) - Tax amount already paid 671,062,860) x 0.1]

* The already paid tax amount = 170,000,000 won in cash + the applied tax amount for annual installment payment by 501,062,860 won

(2) Additional tax due to the number of days unpaid (the maximum amount under the proviso to Article 19-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act): 319,179,594 won (=(13) - (671,062,860 won) x 0.2)

(1) = 478,769,391 won =

(4) Additional taxes for each heir's failure to make payments.

* Regulars: 23,938,468 won (=478,769,391 won) x 0.05)

* Plaintiff: 275,292,398 won (=478,769,391 won x 0.575)

* Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-Nam, and Man-si: 35,907,705 won, respectively (=478,769,391 won) x 0.075)

(17) Total amount of final tax: 3,127,024,156 (=13) + (15) + (16)

(18) The total amount of tax assessed by each heir.

* Regulars: 231,454,990 won = (14) + (15) No. 15) + (16) No. 16)

* Plaintiff: 1,159,656,731 won = (14) + (15) No.

* No. 347,182,487 won (=(14) + (15) + No. 16. No. 16) of each 347,182,487

(19)Deduction of voluntarily paid tax amount

(1) Total amount of voluntarily paid tax: 170,000,000 won.

(2) Voluntary payment by each inheritor.

* Regulars: 8,500,000 won (=170,000,000 won x 0.05)

* Plaintiff: 97,750,000 won (=170,000,000 x 0.575)

* Voluntary Retirement, Hashee, Mashee, Mashee, Mashee, and Mascar: 12,750,000 won, respectively (=170,000,000 x 0.075)

(20) Total amount of reasonable notified tax: 2,957,024,156 won (=(17) - (19) - 19)

(21) Amount of legitimate notified tax by each heir (if less than 10 won is less than 10 won, the forest).

* Stackers: 22,954,990 won [=(18) - (19). (2)]

* Plaintiff: 1,061,906,730 won [=(18) - (19). (2)]

* Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-hee, Man-Namok, Man-si, respectively: 334,432,480 won (=18) - (19). (2)

If the results are arranged in the table, it shall be as shown in the detailed statement of calculation of inheritance tax.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate within the scope of the amount of legitimate notified tax (applicable to the amount stated in the item column of legitimate tax amount of each heir of the foregoing recognition). However, the exceeding part is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claims in this case, each of the claims stated in 1.1, 2.2, and 4. is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. Since the claim in 3.1 of the purport of the claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, it is reasonable to accept it, and the remainder of the claim is without merit, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form No. 1 and Omission of Inheritance Tax Calculation Statement]

Judges Shin Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Sung-soo