갑 제1호증, 갑 제2호증, 갑 제3호증의2, 갑 제4호증의1 내지 13, 갑 제10호증의2 내지5, 을 제1호증의1,2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 별지목록 기재 각 부동산은 원래 소외 망 최ㅇㅇ의 소유였는데 위 망인이 1981. 3. 17. 사망한 후 별지목록기재 1 내지 6, 9 내지 13의 부동산에 관하여 1985. 7. 6.에, 별지목록기재 7,8부동산에 관하여 1982. 3. 31.에 각 1981. 3. 17. 재산상속을 원인으로 하여 장남이자 호주상속인인 원고, 처인 소외 이ㅇㅇ, 차남인 소외 최ㅇ석, 출가한 딸들인 소외 최ㅇ희, 최ㅇ숙, 출가하지 하니한 딸들인 소외 최ㅇ순, 최ㅇ심 앞으로 법정상속지분 비율로 (원고, 소외 이ㅇㅇ 각 6/26, 소외 최ㅇ희,최ㅇ숙 각 1/26, 소외 최ㅇ석, 최ㅇ순, 최ㅇ심 각 4/26) 소유권이전등기가 경료되었다가, 소외 최ㅇ희, 최ㅇ숙의 소유지분에 관하여는 1985. 7. 6.에 같은 달 증여를 원인으로 하여, 소외 최ㅇ순의 소유지분에 관하여는 1990. 12. 5.에 같은 해 11. 22. 증여를 원인으로 하여, 소외 이ㅇㅇ, 최ㅇ석 및 최ㅇ심의 소유지분에 관하여는 1991. 6. 12.에 같은해 5. 1. 증여를 원인으로 하여 원고 앞으로 각 소유권이전등기가 경료되었고, 원고 앞으로의 소외 최ㅇ희, 최ㅇ숙의 소유지분의 이전등기는 1985. 7. 30. 합의해제를 원인으로 하여, 소외 최ㅇ순의 소유지분의 이전등기는 1990. 12. 30. 합의해제를 원인으로 하여, 소외 이ㅇㅇ, 최ㅇ석 및 최ㅇ심의 소유지분의 이전등기는 1991. 6. 30. 합의해제를 원인으로 하여 1991. 11. 28. 각 말소등기절차가 경료됨과 동시에 같은 날 위 상속등기에 관하여 1981. 3. 17. 협의분할로 인한 재산상속을 원인으로 하여 원고 앞으로 소유권경정등기가 경료된 사실, 그런데 피고는 별지목록기재 부동산(이하 이 사건 토지라 한다)에 대한 위 공동상속인 중 원고를 제외한 나머지 상속인들의 상속지분에 관하여 원고 앞으로 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실에 근거하여 위 공동상속인 중 원고를 제외한 나머지 상속인들이 이 사건 토지에 대한 상속지분을 원고에게 증여하였다고 인정하여 1991. 12. 16. 원고에게 증여세 51,087,360원 및 동 방위세 8,514,560원을 부과 고지한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

2. Illegality of disposition

A. The assertion

The plaintiff, at the time of commencement of the inheritance, agreed on the division between co-inheritors to own the land of this case among the property of the inheritee, and therefore, the registration of joint inheritance should be made in the future of the plaintiff on the land of this case, as stated above by clerical error, and thereafter, the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of other co-inheritors on November 28, 191 by agreement among co-inheritors, and at the same time the registration of transfer was cancelled on the ground of the above donation and the registration of transfer by agreement division was made on November 28, 191. Thus, the plaintiff's acquisition of ownership of the whole land of this case was based on the consultation division under the Civil Act, notwithstanding the grounds for registration under the registry, and thus, the disposition of imposition of gift tax, etc. of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the land of this case is legitimate since the co-inheritors, including the plaintiff, jointly inherited in proportion to their respective statutory inheritance shares, and then the plaintiff received their inheritance shares free of charge from other co-inheritors over three times as above. Even if the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled due to donation on November 28, 191 and the registration of inheritance was made due to division at the same time, it cannot be deemed as a division of property. Thus, the disposition of this case, which imposed gift tax, etc. on the plaintiff, is legitimate.

B. Facts and determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, evidence No. 5 and witness testimony, most of the land of this case was first lowered from time to time, and there was an agreement among co-inheritors to have the land of this case owned by the plaintiff who gathered a death, and therefore, the land of this case should be registered as inheritance for the reason of division in the future of the plaintiff. As seen earlier by the certified judicial scrivener responsible for the disposal of this case, the joint inheritance registration has been completed as mentioned above, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of other co-inheritors for the purpose of acquiring the land of this case as a sole ownership of the plaintiff, but the registration of ownership transfer was made in the future by taking the form of donation in order to make the land of this case to be owned by the plaintiff as the sole ownership of another co-inheritors, but the registration of the land of this case was made in accordance with the substance of the agreement, and thus, it cannot be seen that it was unlawful by the plaintiff to have obtained the ownership transfer registration from the above co-inheritors as to the inheritance registration of this case, as well as by agreement cancellation of the inheritance registration of this case.

3 Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation because the taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is justified, and this is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.