2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The deceased's 1, 2 (No. 3 and a certified copy of family register) No. 30, 4 (the decision date of the inheritance tax, No. 1 and No. 1; 2) Eul's 1-2, Eul's 2-3 (pro rata Report), Eul's 4-4, Eul's 5-5 (Report on Assessment of Inheritance Tax and Tax Amount), and Eul's 5-4 (Report on Assessment of Tax Amount), 100, 300, 400, 160, 400, 160, 400, 1967, 400, 60, 197, 400, 600, 500, 160, 306, 60, 40, 60, 60, 197, 196, 30, 196, 30, 196, 40, 196, 360, 14,20, 1,206, 6,20

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

The plaintiffs set up a collateral on July 13, 1982 with the maximum debt amount of 30 million won as the collateral against the non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd.")'s loan obligations against the non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd.") before the formation of the above net profit as the collateral against the non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd."), with the maximum debt amount of 150 million won at the time of the commencement of the above inheritance, the non-party's loan obligations against the non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. were 291,900,00 won for the above non-party's Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd.'s Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Daegu Investment Finance Co., Ltd.)., Ltd., which had no final collateral Co.'s ability to pay the above real debt amount.

The main text of Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of inherited property shall be assessed according to the current state at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Generally, in the evaluation of inherited property, even if a security right is established in the evaluation of inherited property, it is uncertain whether the security right is exercised, and the debtor can be claimed even if the security right is exercised, so it is possible to evaluate the value of the inherited property without considering the burden of the security right. However, in case where it is deemed that the debtor is not able to receive reimbursement for the debtor at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it is reasonable to evaluate the value of the inherited property by deducting the amount of the secured debt which the debtor has failed to pay from its original value and deducting it from the amount of the secured debt which the debtor has failed to pay, and it is also consistent with the purport of the provision of the above Inheritance Tax Act,

8.4 of the above facts: The non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and 5 of the No. 12, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and 3 of the No. 13, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 will.

However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, with regard to whether the above maximum profit, final completion, and final part of the joint and several sureties are solely liable for the guarantee, and the above final completion and the above final part are not any portion to be borne by the joint and several sureties, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to conclude that the above final completion as a family company of the above lowest profit, and the above final part is his own kys, it is difficult to deem that there was no internal burden on the joint and several sureties, and there is no other evidence to support the plaintiffs' assertion, and therefore, it is presumed that the above joint and several sureties's internal burden is equal in the above final completion and the final part as alleged by the plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to acknowledge whether it is impossible to exercise the right of indemnity due to the lack of sufficient ability to repay to the above final part and the final part.

Therefore, according to the above facts, since the above maximum profit of the deceased person was set up before the commencement of the above business for non-party Daegu Investment Finance for the above non-party's textile industry, it is clear that the non-party's textile industry, which was the debtor at the time of the commencement of the above business, could not exercise the right to indemnity against the debtor. Further, the amount of the secured debt which the non-party's partner industry, at the time of the commencement of the above business, could not be assessed as 291,90,90,40 won for the non-party Daegu Investment Finance, the remaining debt amount of the non-party 270,70,000 won for the non-party 70,000 won for the above 60,000 won for the above 60,000 won for the non-party 2,000 won for the above real estate, the remaining debt amount of the non-party 7,07,000 won for the non-party 7,07,07,000 won for the remaining debt amount of 24.

Furthermore, when calculating a reasonable tax amount based on the above-mentioned facts, attached Form 2. It is clear that the amount of tax would be KRW 68,33,375 of inheritance tax and KRW 13,66,675 of defense tax, as stated in the tax calculation sheet.

3. If so, the part of the defendant's disposition of occasional inheritance tax amounting to KRW 107,048,340 and KRW 21,409,660 against the plaintiffs as of November 28, 1984 which exceeds KRW 68,333,375 and KRW 13,66,675 of the defense tax and KRW 13,675 of the defense tax shall be revoked as illegal. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be justified to the extent of seeking revocation of the above excess portion, and it shall be dismissed as for the remainder, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of the proviso of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.

December 5, 1986

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (Attachment 1. List of Inherited Property, 2. Calculation of Tax Amount)]