The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case was recognized as inherited property by rejecting the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the non-party 1, who was the deceased's decedent, had the ownership of the land of this case in the name of the non-party at the time of the death of the non-party 1, but since the non-party sold the land of this case before his death, the land of this case is not inherited property, but should be deducted from the inherited property value from the ownership transfer registration liability due to the sale and purchase, even if not, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, since the non-party 1's assertion that the above sale and purchase should be deducted from the inherited property, and there is no other evidence to prove the above sale and purchase.

Nor can we accept the theory because it is merely merely to criticize the judgment on the admissibility of evidence belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the defendant performer

A disposition of reduction or exemption is a beneficial disposition that revokes a part of the initial taxation disposition, but its effect takes effect only because it is an administrative disposition with the other party, and Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when the tax authority corrected the tax base and tax amount of inheritance tax, it shall be notified to the heir along with the tax base and tax calculation statement. Thus, even if the tax authority determined the amount of inheritance tax internally, if the tax authority did not notify the above tax payment notice, the existence of the valid disposition of reduction or exemption cannot be recognized, and the object of the revocation lawsuit is the initial taxation without correction (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu6903, Nov. 13, 1990; 87Nu766, Nov. 10, 1987). Such defect is not resolved solely on the ground that the taxpayer was aware of the tax base and tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu3404, Nov. 29, 1988 and 383Nu63863.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below issued the tax disposition in this case where the defendant imposed inheritance tax on the plaintiff on the whole inherited property by stating only the name of the plaintiff as a taxpayer on April 16, 1990, and then decided that the tax amount calculated by the tax disposition in this case should be reduced according to the plaintiff's inherited portion, and that the remaining co-inheritors should be additionally notified of the tax amount calculated according to their inherited portion. On December 25, 191, around December 3, 1991, the court below issued 4 copies of the tax notice to the plaintiff who is the family family heir, and there was no evidence to find that there was no notification of the decision to correct the reduction of the tax amount by the tax disposition in this case. Accordingly, the court below revoked the part exceeding the amount of the plaintiff's inherited portion as illegal. According to the records, the court below's finding of facts is acceptable (the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the decision to correct the correction of the plaintiff's inherited property according to the statement in the 7th argument).

The theory of lawsuit is that Article 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act can be known that the amount of tax imposed on the plaintiff himself was reduced compared to the amount of tax notified under the tax assessment by the heir attached thereto by receiving a tax notice against other co-inheritors. However, in the case of joint inheritance, the above provision only provides for a special provision on the method of serving a tax notice of inheritance tax, but it is not just that the defect of the tax assessment disposition in the determination of the amount of inheritance tax against the plaintiff is not cured, but also that the above tax notice cannot be deemed as a notification of the decision of tax reduction. Thus, the argument cannot be accepted merely because it is an independent opinion.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.