In light of his adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the previous disposition was null and void because the plaintiffs sought nullification and cancellation of the inheritance tax imposition disposition (hereinafter "the previous disposition") dated April 3, 1995, and only a written tax payment notice was issued. However, the Daegu High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' primary claim that the previous disposition is null and void on the ground that the service of a tax payment notice is combined with an imposition and collection notice of a tax disposition. However, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment ordering cancellation of the previous disposition by citing the plaintiffs' primary claim for cancellation on the ground that there is a defect in the total amount of inheritance tax and calculation basis of the inheritance tax, and the amount of inheritance tax to be borne by each of the plaintiffs and its calculation details are not stated in the notice of tax payment, and that the above judgment was unlawful. Since the above judgment became final and conclusive upon rejection of the appeal from the Supreme Court on May 18, 1998, the defendant did not err by misapprehending the procedure of the previous disposition, and thus, the previous disposition cannot be seen as having been void within the period of imposition of inheritance tax in itself as the plaintiff's's final decision.

In comparison with the evidence on the record, the recognition and judgment of the court below on the disposition of imposition and notice are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the purport of the legal principles on the exclusion period of national taxes or related precedents.

We cannot accept this part of the grounds of appeal.

2. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

The inheritance tax decision resolution is the internal data of the tax authority to calculate the tax base of inheritance tax and the amount of tax, and merely because the individual inheritor was not indicated as a taxpayer or the amount of inheritance tax is not specified by inheritor, it cannot be said that there exists no inheritance tax assessment itself (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du406, Sept. 14, 2001; 2000Du406, Sept. 14, 2001; 301Du37570, Jul. 12, 2002). In a case where each co-inheritors’s tax notice stating the total tax amount to be paid by the tax authority on the tax payment notice, the tax base, tax rate, and amount of tax credit, etc., and each co-inheritors’s tax obligor’s tax assessment notice attached to the tax payment notice and each co-inheritors’s tax obligor’s tax notice were delivered to each co-inheritors indicated as a taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu10316, Dec. 21, 1993>

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that since the defendant decided the total amount of inheritance tax as the tax base of inherited property in a written resolution of inheritance tax determination, and the tax payment notice has the effect of both the notice of tax assessment and the notice of tax collection as well as the notice of tax assessment, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax, or there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax.

The Supreme Court precedents in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to rely on the instant case in different cases.

We cannot accept this part of the grounds of appeal.

3. As to Chapter 5 of the Grounds for Appeal

The court below held that the above defense tax amount cannot be deducted in calculating the amount of the gift tax on the above donated property on the ground that the plaintiff's return was subject to the imposition of tax amount of KRW 84,206,160 on the donated property added to the taxable value of the inherited property of this case, since the above defense tax was revoked and confirmed by the judgment, and the plaintiff's return to the highest nature was not actually paid, and the defense tax was imposed on the gift tax of this case after deducting the tax amount of the inheritance tax from the calculated amount of inheritance tax, and thus, the amount of the gift tax on the above donated property was already deducted from the tax base of the tax amount of the defense tax of this case.

In accordance with the relevant statutes and records, the recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles or in violation of the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court.

We cannot accept this part of the grounds of appeal.

4. As to ground of appeal No. 6

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s maximum return was 47.4962% of the total inheritance tax base of the instant case when calculating the occupancy ratio of the property that the Plaintiff received pursuant to Article 18(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662, Dec. 31, 1993) after including the value of the donated property donated prior to the commencement of inheritance in the taxable value of the instant inheritance.

In accordance with relevant statutes and records, the recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law such as failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the share of inheritance.

We cannot accept these arguments in the grounds of appeal.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)