(b) The effects of taxation by omitting the matters to be stated or attached in a tax notice by co-inheritors.

B. In issuing a tax notice to co-inheritors, pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the amount of tax imposed, as well as the names of co-inheritors who are liable for tax payment, shall be specified in the tax amount to be subdivided in proportion to each of their shares of inheritance by the taxpayer, as well as the grounds for calculation thereof and the details of calculation shall be specified or attached thereto. In a case where there were errors by omitting such entry or attachment

The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

In order to determine specific tax liability in the taxation method like inheritance tax, a tax payment notice shall be served individually on each of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment and shall not be served on each of them under Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu81, Oct. 22, 1985). In this case, in issuing a tax payment notice, a tax payment notice shall specify not only the name of co-inheritors who are liable for tax payment but also the tax amount subdivided in proportion to each of their shares of inheritance, and shall state or attach details of the basis for calculation or calculation to each of the persons liable for tax payment. If there is any error of omission of such statement or attachment, such taxation disposition shall be unlawful (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu624, Feb. 10, 1987; 86Nu673, May 26, 1987). Thus, it cannot be deemed invalid or invalid.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in imposing the inheritance tax of this case against the plaintiffs, the court below confirmed that the defendant stated the taxpayer on the front side of the notice as "Plaintiff 1 and five persons" and stated only the total amount of inheritance tax and the grounds for calculation thereof, and prepared a written notice stating the tax amount to be paid to each taxpayer and the details of calculation, and delivered it only to the plaintiff 1 who voluntarily selected the heir from among the inheritors. The disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case was not properly conducted, but it was determined that the tax notice against the plaintiffs was not properly conducted, and that the payment notice omitted from the calculation basis of individual tax amount was not duly made. The above judgment of the court below against the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 was in accordance with the above stated reasoning, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the inheritance tax payment notice, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is not justified.

However, the above disposition is effective against the plaintiff 1. However, it is nothing more than the fact that the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors do not specify the amount of tax to be individually paid and the statement of calculation can be cancelled. However, the decision of the court below that the disposition of this case against the same plaintiff is null and void as a matter of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation of the administrative disposition. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

All theories purport to criticize the judgment of the court below by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court, and even after examining the process of evidence collection by the records, there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence such as erroneous determination of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the inheritance tax against Plaintiff 1 is reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal against the same Plaintiff and the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs are without merit, and each of them is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)