2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs' inheritance and the defendant's taxation disposition

1) The Plaintiffs: (a) died on October 0, 2010; and (b) succeeded to the deceased’s property with six (6) the deceased’s spouse, YY and children TT.

2) On October 00, 2012, the Seoul Regional Tax Office, to which the Defendant belongs, notified the Plaintiffs of the total amount of KRW 0,000,000,000 of inheritance tax.

3) Meanwhile, as the deceased’s inheritors did not pay inheritance tax, the Seoul regional tax office’s 00 years of age report on October 0, 201 completed the registration of each of the co-ownership shares of each land (a total of 00,000,000,000 and 00-0,000, hereinafter “TT-owned real estate”) owned by TM on October 0, 201, with respect to each of the land owned by TM on October 0, 201, and each of the above land and its ground appraisal (a total of 00,000,000,000,000, hereinafter “M-owned real estate”). < Amended by Act No. 11406, Oct. 0, 2012; Act No. 000-0, Oct. 0, 2012; Act No. 00-000, hereinafter “M-owned real estate”).

B. Final and conclusive judgment related to this case and notification of modification to inheritance tax of this case

1) On October 00, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against TT and MM with the District Court 000 2010 Gahap0000000. The above court rendered a judgment of winning part of the Plaintiffs with the following: “T” for the Plaintiff on October 00, 2012; “T” for each 00,000,000,000, and “M” for each 00,000,000,000, and the delay delay payment amount for each of them. The above judgment was finalized on October 0, 2012 (hereinafter “related final judgment”).

2) 위 000세무서는 2013. 0. 00. 관련 확정판결에 따라 원고들의 상속지분을 각*.**4%에서 &.&&5%로, TTT의 상속지분을 **.59%에서 ##.44%로, MMM의 상속지분을 @@.539%에서 ##.835%로 각 변경한 다음 이를 원고들 등에게 통지하였고(이하 '이 사건 상속세 변경 통지'라 한다), 그 다음날인 2013. 0. 00. 원고들의 TTT 및 MMM에 대한 관련 확정판결에 따른 유류분 반환청구채권의 압류(이하 '이 사건 압류'라 한다) 통지를 하였다.

3) On the other hand, as to the claim for the return of legal reserve against Plaintiff DD’s claim against Plaintiff DD’s MM, the creditor served Nonparty H’s claim attachment and collection order on October 00, 2013, MM deposited KRW 0,000,000, including the entire amount of the claim for return of legal reserve of inheritance against the Plaintiffs on the ground of the creditor’s uncertainty on October 0, 2013 (hereinafter “the deposit in this case”).

4) In addition, around October 2013, the above 00-year-old book notified Plaintiff DD that the above changed inheritance tax would be provided to the Korea Federation of Banks under Article 7-2 of the National Tax Collection Act if it was not paid by October 0, 2013.

C. The instant agreement, etc.

After that, on October 0, 2013, the Plaintiffs and MM et al. agreed on the inherited property and MM (A No. 10; hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) and paid the changed inheritance tax between October 0, 2013 and October 00, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 10, Eul's evidence 1 and 2 (including Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the Defendant had already seized a number of real estate for the execution of the instant inheritance tax, etc., the instant attachment was executed on the instant TT and MM-owned real estate in violation of Article 33-2 of the National Tax Collection Act.

2) Despite the fact that the Plaintiffs received the relevant final and conclusive judgment and actually received the return of the reserved portion from TT, etc., the Plaintiffs’ notification of the change of the inheritance tax of this case on the premise that the said 00-year-old taxpayer was returned the said reserved portion was in violation of the substance over form principle.

3) In addition, the above 00-year-old book notified the Plaintiffs that it will be provided to the Korea Federation of Banks in the event that they did not pay the pertinent inheritance tax to the Plaintiffs, and the public officials of the Seoul Seoul Seoul Regional Tax Office forced the Plaintiffs and MM to pay the above inheritance tax, etc., while forcing the Plaintiffs to pay the above inheritance tax, etc. without paying the instant inheritance tax, and deceiving them as if they did not intend to refund the portion exceeding the Plaintiffs’ inheritance share even if they paid the inheritance tax on behalf of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the TT inheritance share

4) The Plaintiffs agreed to pay inheritance tax, etc. on behalf of the Plaintiffs, in the status that the Plaintiffs were unable to receive the actual reserve of inheritance from MM, etc. due to the illegal and unfair acts committed by the tax officials of 000 years of age or tax office, and the Plaintiffs were paid in lieu of the inheritance tax, etc. corresponding to the shares of the TT inheritance, and paid in lieu of TT

5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs KRW 00,000,000 (the difference between the amount that the Plaintiffs could have been paid by MM according to the relevant final judgment and the amount actually paid by MM), which is part of the amount that the Plaintiffs actually received by MM, as well as KRW 00,000,000, consolation money, and damages for delay.

B. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above basic facts and adopted evidence, the circumstances and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs alone are hard to recognize that the defendant committed a tort as alleged above, or that the plaintiffs suffered losses as alleged above, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2) ① Article 3(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) that was enforced at the time of the instant attachment and the instant notice of change of inheritance tax provides that “he inheritor is liable to pay the inheritance tax on the basis of the property that he received or is to receive.” The inheritor is jointly and severally liable to pay within the scope of the property that he/she received or is to receive pursuant to Article 3(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As such, the tax official affiliated with the Defendant issued a notice of change of inheritance tax in consideration of the statutory reserve amount to be returned to the Plaintiffs according to the final judgment related to the final judgment, but even if the tax official demanded the Plaintiffs to pay inheritance tax corresponding to the inheritance shares of other inheritors, such as MM

② It is also based on Article 7-2 of the National Tax Collection Act that the Defendant’s 000-year-old secretary notifies the Plaintiff DD to provide the financial institution with default, and it is difficult to view it as an unlawful act.

③ There is no evidence to acknowledge that KK, who is a public official belonging to the Defendant, forced the Plaintiffs to pay inheritance tax equivalent to the shares in TT inheritance, or that if the Plaintiffs paid inheritance tax on behalf of the Plaintiffs in excess of the shares in inheritance, it would be refunded to the Plaintiffs.

④ Also, the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs are ultimately attributable to the instant agreement between the Plaintiffs and MM. As long as the instant agreement was reached pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ free will, even if a tax official, who belongs to the Defendant, violated relevant statutes or committed an unfair disposition or act in the alteration and seizure of the inheritance tax of this case, it is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between such unlawful act and the damages alleged by the Plaintiffs.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted without any need to consider any other point, such as the amount of damages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is dismissed in its entirety on the ground that it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.