2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The rejection of correction shall be revoked.

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

○ The portion of “the deduction amount was notified .................” to “the deduction amount was calculated as xx won, and then the tax base and notice amount was determined as 0 won, and notified to BB.”

○ From 5th to 18th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

1) Whether the instant disposition goes against the binding force of the preceding administrative disposition

The binding, fair, and final binding power of an administrative disposition is merely impossible to deny the validity of the administrative disposition to the objective extent that the effect of the administrative disposition is effective, and it does not mean that an administrative agency, etc. should be bound by the validity of the administrative disposition until it does not reach the validity of the administrative disposition. In other words, the effect of the administrative disposition in this case is only binding, fair, and final binding only within the objective scope of the administrative disposition’s effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41562, Aug. 18, 2016) and that the head of a tax office determines the tax base and amount of inheritance tax in this case and notifies BB of the determination thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41562, Aug. 18, 2016). However, the effect of the administrative disposition in this case is entirely different from the inheritance tax and its taxation unit and tax item. Thus, the effect of the administrative disposition in this case’s tax base and amount cannot be deemed as effective in calculating the tax base, etc. of the transfer income tax.

○ From 7th to 9th of the judgment of the first instance court, the portion “only .................................”

The assessment of the value of the instant real estate by the director of a tax office of Korea is based on the xx won on the basis of the individual housing price, etc. publicly notified after the commencement of inheritance (i.e., the housing price publicly notified on April 30, 2005, xx won + the standard market price of other buildings) of the instant building, and thus, the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land has already been included in the said publicly notified housing price, notwithstanding the fact that the publicly notified individual land price of the instant land was already included in the above publicly notified individual land price, it is merely deemed that the xx won calculated as above was due to an error in the calculation of adding again

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.