(a) As to KRW 411,986,580 among the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant and KRW 43,100,000 among them, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay KRW 5% per annum from July 28, 2013 to July 24, 2014; KRW 78,571,054 per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; KRW 43,100,00 per annum from May 25, 2013 to KRW 5,00; and KRW 5,625,00 per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; KRW 5% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; KRW 78,571,054 per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; KRW 45,00 per annum from May 25, 2013 to the date of full payment; and KRW 45,2015 to the date of full payment.

B. As to KRW 230,078,920 and KRW 144,784,402 from January 22, 2014; and KRW 85,294,518 from March 25, 2015 to April 16, 2015; and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. The remaining main claim of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation cost, 4/9 shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

3. The provisional execution may be effected in accordance with the first A, and the second B.

A. Main suit: The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a claim for interest on KRW 865,590,726 and KRW 12,903,122 from May 1, 2009 to KRW 68,575,917; from August 30, 2010 to KRW 150,690; from May 25, 2013 to KRW 55,000; from July 28, 2013 to KRW 27,50,000; from KRW 150,500; from KRW 50,000; from KRW 50 to KRW 5,00,00,00, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”); from June 24, 2014 to KRW 454,759,753; from the date following the judgment of the court of first instance to the date of repayment; from KRW 250 per annum; and from KRW 15855, the Plaintiff’s annual interest repayment.

B. Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 670,040,222 won and to the defendant 373,607,967 won from the day following the extension of the claim for the counterclaim and the delivery of a copy of the application for alteration of cause as of January 17, 2014; with respect to KRW 296,432,255, the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for expansion of the claim for the counterclaim as of March 24, 2015 to the day of complete payment (the defendant extended the claim for the counterclaim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. Main suit: The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

B. Counterclaim: Revocation of the counterclaim part in the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 373,607,967 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for extension of claim and alteration of cause of the counterclaim as of January 17, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 27 million won with 5% per annum from June 24, 2014 to June 24, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 27, 1948, the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) married Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 as their children, and died on September 10, 1953, and thereafter Nonparty 2 went back with Nonparty 5 and left the Plaintiff and the Defendant as their children. On March 6, 1990, the deceased on January 18, 2009.

B. On October 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was transferred by Nonparty 3’s inheritance shares (1/4 shares) in his/her property.

C. At the time of the deceased’s death, the deceased held each real estate listed in the separate sheet (as of April 2, 2009) (as of 1,771,035,105 won (as of April 2, 2009) by using each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, as “○○○ building”, “△△ building” and “each of the instant buildings” collectively, and as of the sum of deposit claims against the Korea Development Bank (hereinafter “Citty Bank”) and the Korea Development Bank (hereinafter “Sitty Bank”) and the Korea Development Bank (hereinafter “Sitty Bank”). However, under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of the adjudication on the division of inherited property, the deceased’s inherited property remains only for each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

D. On May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant and Nonparty 4 for an adjudication on the division of inherited property [the Seoul Family Court 2009 Ma777, 2010 Mahap147, 2010 Mahap219 (Rejudgments)]. On December 27, 2011, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Defendant was entitled to special benefits (8,877,773,417 won) in excess of his statutory inheritance amount (5,72,326,236), and the Defendant was excluded from the actual distribution of inherited property; the Plaintiff’s final share amount was KRW 9,509,463,320; KRW 200; KRW 4,812,307,879, KRW 00 ○○ building was the Plaintiff’s list of △△△△ building and Nonparty 214, respectively; and the lower court dismissed Nonparty 2141 and Nonparty 241, respectively.271.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on common claims filed in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(a) Requests for return of rent of ○○ building;

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

As a result of the decision on the division of inherited property in a related case, the Plaintiff owned ○○ building retroactively at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sum total of 44,764,753 won and delay damages therefor, which the Defendant received from the lessee for ○○ building after the commencement of the inheritance, as indicated in the following table.

The sum of the tenant periods included in the main sentence of Non-party 6 in the non-party 6 in the non-party 6 in March 127, 2009 - 750,000 on May 18, 201 - June 201, 201 - November 333, 2011, the non-party 51,886,380, non-party 7 in the counter-party 165,00,000 on March - November 20, 2011 (the second floor and the second floor) Non-party 884,714,629 (the third floor and the third floor) on December 127, 2009 / 714, 629 (the third floor and the third floor) on July 20, 200, 000, 100, 1084-18,2084,8108

B) Defendant’s assertion

Since the rent generated from real estate, which is inherited property, after the commencement of inheritance, is not inherited property, it is not inherited property. Therefore, since the inheritance commenced from January 18, 2009 to April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the ○○ building from the inherited property to April 26, 2013, the rent of KRW 1,663,269,142 and the Plaintiff’s 183.29 square meters out of the underground room of ○○○○ building and 398.25 square meters out of the 366.25 square meters of the 39.25 square meters of the 398.25 square meters of the 398.25 square meters of the 396.25 square meters of the inheritance, the Plaintiff was not entitled to the division of inherited property, and the Plaintiff was not entitled to the above profits of KRW 1,39,196,346,302,468,264,767.

(ii) the facts of recognition

From January 18, 2009 when inheritance commenced due to the death of the deceased, the fact that the total rent received by the plaintiff from the lessees of ○○ building for the period from April 26, 2013 when the inheritance division became final and conclusive until April 26, 2013 (hereinafter “the period during which the division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive”) does not conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant received KRW 44,764,753 out of the total rent of the above 12 and the remainder of KRW 21,693,182 out of the total rent of the above 12 and KRW 21,693,182 received by the defendant, and the remainder of KRW 7,180, KRW 10, KRW 142 out of the total rent of the building used by the plaintiff, KRW 1,63,269, and KRW 1465,57,000 among the total rent of the above 200 building, KRW 165365,275,2545,275,25.

3) Determination

A) Effect of division of inherited property

Since the inheritance subject to division of inherited property is limited to the property of the inheritee at the time of commencement of the inheritance and the negligence of inherited property, such as rent of inherited property, etc., generated after the commencement of the inheritance did not exist at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the inheritance is the public property of the inheritor acquired according to the inherited property, not the inherited property itself in nature. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, such as there is no objection to resolve a dispute including the negligence of inherited property, and there is no expectation that the dispute can be resolved efficiently, the negligence of inherited property is the subject of division of inherited property in principle, and the co-inheritors should receive the portion corresponding to their inherited property through civil claims such as the return of co-inheritors'

Therefore, the co-inheritors have the right to acquire the fruits, such as rent from inherited property, during the period from the commencement of inheritance until the division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive, according to their own statutory shares of inheritance. Therefore, one of the co-inheritors can seek a return of the negligence equivalent to his/her portion of inheritance he/she has not acquired within the extent that he/she has acquired, only in cases where another co-inheritors acquired the negligence in excess of his/her share of inheritance and thereby acquired it in excess of his/her share of inheritance.

B) Undue gains

Then, 2,69,374,692 won (i.e., KRW 1,63,269,142 + 1,036,105,50) equivalent to 1/4 shares of the defendant's inheritance among the total amount of 2,69,269,269,142 won incurred from 40.25% of the total amount of 1,677.25% of the total amount of 2,46% of the total amount of 2,45% of the total amount of 1,67.4% of the total amount of 2,45% of the total amount of 2,45% of the total amount of 1,65% of the total amount of 2,40% of the total amount of 1,349,764,753 won of the total amount of 2,475% of the total amount of 25% of the total amount of 2,1663 won of the inheritance amount of the plaintiff

(b) A claim for inheritance tax reimbursement;

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,374,949,960 as inheritance tax on the deceased’s inheritance. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 297,263,850 separately by the Defendant, 297,263,850 as inheritance tax, and as a result, the Defendant paid KRW 297,263,850 as inheritance tax, and the remainder by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s inheritance tax liability ratio is 16.23%, and the Defendant’s share of KRW 2,374,94,960 as inheritance tax is 385,454,376, which is 16.23%, the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall pay the remainder of KRW 8,190,526, which was calculated by subtracting the Defendant’s actual payment of KRW 297,263,850, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.

B) Defendant’s assertion

Since the percentage of inheritance tax liability of the Defendant is 6.43%, the amount of inheritance tax to be borne by the Defendant is KRW 152,701,490, which is 6.43% of the amount of inheritance tax to be borne by the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 297,263,850 in excess of that amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff should return to the Defendant 14,562,360 out of the amount refunded by the Plaintiff due to unjust enrichment of the Plaintiff from Seongbuk North Korea (=297,263,850 - KRW 152,701,490) and damages for delay.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) The Plaintiff and the Defendant voluntarily paid KRW 1,465,941,70 of inheritance tax as part of the deposit for the said CT Bank and the securities held by the Deceased at the time of the death. On December 17, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant received permission for annual payment of inheritance tax from the director of the Seongbuk-gu Tax Office to pay the inheritance tax amount of KRW 2,409,40 (=the remaining inheritance tax amount of KRW 2,186,606,380 + interest of KRW 22,795,060 + interest of KRW 222,795,060) five times from July 31, 2010 to July 31, 2014.

B) On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a decision of correction with a purport to deduct the remaining amount of inheritance tax from KRW 1,736,471,750, after paying KRW 511,545,620, the first inheritance tax due under the permission for annual payment by annual installments. After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 478,47,440, the amount of inheritance tax payable on July 29, 201, including the interest amount on the said revised amount of inheritance tax, and KRW 478,447,440, the amount of inheritance tax paid on July 31, 2012; and KRW 892,217,430, the amount of inheritance tax paid on May 24, 2013; and paid KRW 1 through 5,374,99,969,90,000, respectively.

C) The Defendant, separate from the Plaintiff, paid KRW 174,078,980 out of the first payment of inheritance tax, and KRW 297,263,850 of the second payment of inheritance tax, which was the aggregate of KRW 123,184,870, and KRW 297,263,850, out of the second payment of inheritance tax. As above, the Plaintiff received a refund from the Defendant from the Sungbuk tax secretary, while paying the first or fifth payment of inheritance tax pursuant to the annual payment of annual installments.

D) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 4 for the claim for reimbursement (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap16973). On January 22, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and recognized the Defendant’s tax liability ratio as 22.12% for each inheritor.

E) Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Sungbuk Island decided the ratio of tax liability for each heir under Article 3(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to Plaintiff 51.72%, Defendant 15.97%, Nonparty 30%, and Nonparty 432.31% on December 24, 2014 to Plaintiff 56.58%, Defendant 16.23%, Nonparty 30%, and Nonparty 427.19% on June 16, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through 5, 22, 24, 29, 30, 34, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, order and result of submission of tax information to Seoul regional tax office of the court of first instance, and purport of whole pleadings

3) Determination

Inheritance tax is jointly and severally liable to pay within the limit of property that an heir or a testamentary donee received or is to receive (Article 3(3) and (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same). When one of the joint obligors jointly and severally liable is jointly discharged at his/her own expense, the inheritance tax may exercise the right to indemnity, including statutory interest after the date of exemption from liability for the portion of other joint and several obligors and other expenses that cannot be avoided and other damages (Article 425 of the Civil Act). Therefore, where one of the joint co-inheritors becomes jointly exempted due to the payment of inheritance tax or extinguishment of joint and several liability at his/her own expense, the portion of other joint and several obligors’ joint and several liability may be exercised. In such cases, the percentage of internal share of inheritance tax should be determined according to the percentage of inheritance tax liability by heir prescribed in Article 3(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the defendant paid 2,374,9,960 won in aggregate according to the permission for payment by annual installments, and that the plaintiff paid 297,263,850 won, and the ratio of the defendant's heir's tax liability is 16.23% as the final decision of the head of the competent tax office. (On the premise that the plaintiff's inheritance tax liability ratio is 6.43%, the defendant has a duty to return 14,562,360 won to the defendant with unjust enrichment, but the above confession cancellation cannot be deemed as against the truth and there is no validity. In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's tax liability ratio by heir of the defendant was 35.05%, and the plaintiff's claim was 25% as to the above ratio of the plaintiff's inheritance tax claim, but the plaintiff's claim was still 35.05% of the plaintiff's claim for the above ratio as the ground for extension of inheritance tax claim 24.23% 13.

Therefore, among the above inheritance tax amounting to KRW 2,374,94,960, the part borne by the defendant is KRW 385,454,378 (=2,374,949,960 x 16.23%). The plaintiff who paid the remainder excluding KRW 297,263,850 paid by the defendant among the above 2,374,949,960 x 160 x 88,190,528 on behalf of the defendant in excess of his share of expenses (385,454,378 - 297,263,850 - interest paid by the defendant). Accordingly, the defendant exempted the plaintiff from its liability to pay damages for delay. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay 88,190,526 % of the amount of indemnity to the plaintiff within the extent of 25th day of 25th day of 2013.

Thus, the plaintiff's assertion about the claim for inheritance tax reimbursement is justified within the extent of recognition, and the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Determination on the remaining claims

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff repaid the inherited debt as indicated below, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 346,104,039, which corresponds to the Defendant’s inheritance shares among the amounts repaid by the Plaintiff with the indemnity amount, and the delay damages therefor.

The amount of the Plaintiff’s share in the Plaintiff’s inheritance (won) included in the main sentence shall be Nonparty 620,00,000,0005,000,000,730,0000,000 75,000,000,000 Nonparty 8250,000,000,000, 62,500,000, Nonparty 9140,000,000, 35,000,000, 110,000,000, 1,020,000,000,000,000,000,005,000,000,000,000,000,50,000, 300,50,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0636163636

Note 1) 68,575,917

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s refund of lease deposit

The Deceased’s lease of ○○○ building as indicated below. However, from May 16, 2013 to June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 942,40,00 to Nonparty 10,000 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,00 out of KRW 15,27,28,31,33, and 35 to Nonparty 20. The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 10,000 to Nonparty 10,50 to Nonparty 40,50 to Nonparty 10,50,000 to Nonparty 10,50,000 to Nonparty 10,50 to Nonparty 10,50,000 to Nonparty 2, 50,000 to Nonparty 4, 10,000,000 to Nonparty 10,50,000 to Nonparty 2,50,000,000 won.

Non-party 620,00,000 to 6220,000,000 from December 24, 2008 to December 27, 2013.220,000 (one story), non-party 7300,000,000 to 13,00,000 from October 10, 208 to 204.03,00,000,000 to 250,000,000 to 250,000,000,000 to 204,000,000 to 200,000 to 204,00 to 200,000 to 200,000 to 204,00 to 16,005.16,00 to 205.24,00 to 16,000 to 204,07,007.20

2) Payment of the Plaintiff’s fees to certified tax accountants

On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff delegated all of the inheritance tax reporting and investigation duties upon the deceased’s death to Nonparty 13, and paid 38.5 million won as remuneration from April 16, 2009 to May 19, 2010.

3) Plaintiff’s bank loan repayment

On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff repaid 51,612,491 won (i.e., principal + interest KRW 50 million + interest KRW 1,612,491) to Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I Bank”) on February 28, 2001.

4) The Plaintiff’s tax payment by the deceased

On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was notified by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office of the value-added tax and income tax on the omitted portion of the deceased’s rent income prior to the death of each building of this case. On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the additional value-added tax on the omitted portion of the rent income of each building of this case that the deceased acquired prior to the death, and the additional global income tax and resident tax on the deceased respectively, from 2006 to 2008 as indicated below.

Value-added tax (won) on global income tax (won) on the building ○○○○○○○ Building located in the main sentence - 11,5206 - 11,520,152,080 - 3,464,500 - 3,464,500 - 220,610 69,220,560,560,6222,050 - 922,0502,362,7804,5608,5608,12,109,0704,437,4868,4868,482,505,368,482,486,486,405,208, 2008

[Reasons for Recognition] Items A and 2, 6, 9 through 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 25 through 29, 31 through 33, 35, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments set forth in Item B and subparagraph 3

(c) Claim for reimbursement of lease deposit;

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

Where co-owners of a building jointly lease a building and receive a security deposit, such lease does not lease their own shares, and it shall be deemed that the leased object is jointly leased as many parties, barring any special circumstance, and the obligation to return the security deposit constitutes an indivisible obligation in its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.). Thus, the same applies to the case where the obligation to return the security deposit is inherited, the obligation to return the security deposit shall be deemed to be succeeded to by the co-inheritors at the time of commencement of the inheritance at the same time as the commencement of the inheritance. In addition, if an indivisible obligation becomes jointly discharged due to repayment or other one’s own withdrawal, the obligation to return the security deposit shall be deemed to have been succeeded to the statutory share of the co-inheritors at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In addition, if one co-inheritors has repaid the security deposit with respect to inherited property, it shall be deemed that one co-inheritors may exercise the right to indemnity including legal interest after the date of exemption from the other co-inheritors’s payment.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit to the lessee of ○○○ building. As such, the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff the legal interest interest accrued from the date of exemption under Articles 411 and 425(2) of the Civil Act with respect to the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s shares in inheritance and each of its refund deposits. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 942,400,600, the total amount of the lease deposit that the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff and KRW 43,100,000 (non-party 8) for the Plaintiff’s interest or delay damages (the non-party 2) from May 25, 2013 to 20,500,000 (non-party 6) from the date of the final refund to the 20th day after the date of repayment to the 20th day after July 28, 2013 to the 20th day after the date of performance, respectively, the Defendant’s duty of repayment to the Plaintiff from the 25th day after 201.

(2) The Plaintiff did not specify the initial date, etc. for damages for delay with respect to the lease deposit returned to Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 9 when changing the claim amount for the refund of the lease deposit from the legal brief on February 3, 2014 and the final summary of the claim, and did not specify the initial date, etc. In the meantime, with respect to the claim for reimbursement of the lease deposit returned to Nonparty 8, the Plaintiff sought interest or damages for delay only KRW 43,100,000 from the legal brief on February 3, 2014, which was invoked in the legal brief on June 24, 2014 (However, the Plaintiff added the claim for damages for delay with respect to the portion of KRW 27,50,000, which was dismissed by the first instance court in the non-party 9). The claim for reimbursement of the lease deposit is summarized as follows.

On July 28, 2013, Nonparty 65,500,000, which was the first day of the interest or delay damages claimed by Nonparty 65,000,000, which were included in the main text, the interest or delay damages claimed by Nonparty 862,50,000 on July 28, 2013, Nonparty 75,000,000 on May 25, 2013, it is deemed that the interest or delay damages claimed by Nonparty 935,00,000, 27,50,000, 00 on June 24, 2014.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is in the status of a lessor by acquiring ownership retroactively from the time of commencement of the inheritance, because the plaintiff alone inherited ○○ building and acquired ownership, the obligation to return the lease deposit also shall be borne by the plaintiff. However, in the event that the ownership of the real estate which is the object of the lease is transferred, barring special circumstances such as the ownership of the real estate is transferred to the lessor as a matter of course pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, barring special circumstances such as where the status of the lessor is naturally succeeded to as a matter of course, the obligation to return the lease deposit for the real estate concerned shall not be taken over with the new owner as a result of the transfer of ownership of the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 96Meu912 delivered on August 22, 197). Thus, unless the defendant asserts and proves such special circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to bear the obligation

(d) A claim for reimbursement of certified tax accountant remuneration;

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

According to Article 998-2 of the Civil Code, the expenses for inheritance shall be paid out of the inherited property. If the inherited property is not separated from the inherited property of the inheritor, the heir bears the obligation to pay the expenses according to his/her share, and if the share is not particularly determined, it shall be the legal share of inheritance, such as the inheritance obligation.

On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff entrusted Nonparty 13 with the duties related to inheritance following the death of the deceased and paid 38.5 million won with remuneration. In light of the commencement of inheritance, disputes over inherited property between the Plaintiff and other inheritors, or the size of the deceased’s inherited property, etc., the payment of remuneration seems to have been properly used as expenses necessary for inheritance. Thus, regardless of whether the Defendant received property to be substantially inherited in the relevant case or whether there exists an agreement on the burden of expenses among co-inheritors, the Defendant was exempted from the payment of remuneration for a certified tax accountant equivalent to his/her inherited property to be paid, and the Plaintiff suffered losses. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,625,00 (=38.5 million x 1/4), 200 per annum from the following day to the 20th day of December 131, 2013, the Defendant’s application for compensation for delay as well as the Defendant’s claim for performance within the scope of 14.20% per annum and its claim.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that he had employed a tax accountant in relation to his inheritance, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has paid such expenses. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

E. Deceased’s claim for reimbursement of tax and bank loan

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

In a case where the content of performance is jointly inherited, such as a pecuniary obligation, such performance is naturally divided into co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809 delivered on June 24, 1997).

The Plaintiff paid value-added tax, global income tax, and resident tax, total amount of KRW 262,671,730 on August 30, 2010 on the revenues of the deceased acquired before the commencement of the inheritance; paid KRW 51,612,491 on the deceased’s debts to one bank; and each of the above taxes and bank loans repaid by the Plaintiff on April 30, 2009 are identical as seen earlier; therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 65,667,932 (i.e., 262,671,730 x 1/40 x 1/670 x 1/4,000 on the following day after the death of the deceased; hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 12,903,1222 x 12,491 x 265% of the total amount of the Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement against the Defendant.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff paid the above loans to the deceased's inherited property or borrowed the above loans in the name of the deceased, and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed them by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Determination on the remaining counterclaims

A. Claim for the return of part of the deposit of the deceased Cmat Bank

1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant paid 173,793,580 won and 289,009,649 won for acquisition tax on the ○○○ building inherited by the plaintiff as a deposit claim against the deceased's Citti Bank, and for transfer of registration expenses, 115,216,069 won on behalf of the plaintiff. Among them, 72,252,412 won equivalent to the defendant's inheritance shares 1/4 of the defendant's inheritance shares were paid as the defendant's shares in inheritance. Thus, the plaintiff should return the above 72,252,412 won and delay damages therefrom to the defendant.

2) Determination

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 8, the registration of ownership transfer for the ○○ building was completed on June 24, 2009 by the plaintiff and the defendant 1/2 shares on the ground of inheritance on January 18, 2009. On May 24, 2013, the date the relevant case became final and conclusive, the plaintiff completed the registration of correction by the plaintiff alone on the ground of the division of inherited property on May 24, 2013. The plaintiff and the defendant's deposit against CT Bank with the plaintiff and the defendant as acquisition tax imposed respectively on the plaintiff and the defendant, with acquisition tax of KRW 86,896,79,790, the total amount of KRW 115,216,069,09,009,009,009, and the defendant's deposit money cannot be viewed as having been used on the basis of the above agreement without any special reasons.

(b) A claim for the return of the rent of △△ building;

1) The defendant's assertion

During the period during which the division of inherited property is not possible, KRW 123,710,321 equivalent to the Defendant’s inheritance shares in the aggregate of KRW 494,841,287 paid by the lessee of △△△ building. The Defendant received only KRW 108,245,00 among them, and the remainder was received by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should return to the Defendant the amount calculated by deducting the Defendant’s above KRW 108,245,321 from the amount of KRW 123,710,321 as unjust enrichment, and delay damages therefrom.

2) Determination

In the case of △△△ building, the rent generated during the period in which the division of inherited property is not determined, as in the case of the above ○○○ building, shall be attributed to co-inheritors according to their respective inheritance shares. If the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the statement in the evidence No. 4, the rent generated in the △△ building during the period in which the division of inherited property is not determined, can be recognized that the rent generated in the △△△△ building is 494,841,287. Thus, among them, 123,710,321 won equivalent to the defendant’s inherited shares 1/4 of the total inheritance shares is the defendant’s inherited shares. However, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff, among them, received the rent generated in the △△△ building during the above period in excess of 247,420,643 won, including the shares that the plaintiff acquired from Nonparty 3, 201, the court of first instance did not recognize the fact that the plaintiff received the above decision of △△△△△ building alone.

(c) Claim for the reimbursement of acquisition tax and property tax on ○○ building;

1) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff, without the Defendant’s consent, transferred the ownership of ○○ building to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s co-ownership by inheritance. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed KRW 168,364,860 on ○○○ building as acquisition tax, property tax, etc., and the Plaintiff paid KRW 54,729,080 among the registration tax, but the Defendant paid KRW 113,635,780 on 113,635,780 on ○○ building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant the amount of reimbursement that the Defendant paid by 113,635,780 on her behalf, and delay damages therefrom.

2) Determination

With respect to ○○○ building, the registration of correction was completed on May 24, 2013 after the registration of ownership transfer was completed by 1/2 shares in the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s 1/2 shares on June 24, 2009, and on May 24, 2013. According to the evidence Nos. 9, the Defendant was subject to the imposition of acquisition tax of 63,686,240, registration tax of 00, and registration tax of 54,729,080, and property tax of 49,949,540 from that time until 2012, and each of the above taxes was fully paid. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of inheritance of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s 11 without the Defendant’s consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above domestic taxes were imposed on the Defendant, even if the above domestic taxes were wrong, and there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s exemption from the payment of taxes.

5. Conclusion

Comprehensively taking account of at least 8,190,526 won of inheritance tax; 235,60,000 won of indemnity for deposit; 9,625,00 won of indemnity for the deceased’s taxes and bank loans; 41,571,986,580 won; 43,100 won of indemnity for the deceased’s taxes and bank loans; 20.5% of the total annual amount from the 25th day of May 25, 2013; 20.5% of the total annual amount from the 20.5% of the total annual amount; 20.5% of the total annual amount from the 20.5% from the 25th day of July 28, 2013 to the 205th day of July 24, 2014; 3.5% of the total annual amount from 205% to the 20.5% of the total annual amount; 25% of the total amount from 20.5%

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim are accepted within the scope of each above recognition, and each of them is dismissed as the plaintiff's remaining main claim and the defendant's remaining counterclaim are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair differently from this conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is partially accepted the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal, the plaintiff's additional main claim in the trial, and the counter-claim expanded by the defendant in the trial, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as mentioned above, and the plaintiff's remaining main claim and the defendant's remaining counter-claim are dismissed,

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

1) If the Plaintiff paid KRW 29,687,470 in total of value-added tax, global income tax, and resident tax for the period from February 2, 2006 to February 2009, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 74,921,867, which constitutes the Defendant’s shares in inheritance (=29,687,470 won x 1/4). From the application for extension of claim of February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 1,25,383,80 in total of value-added tax for ○○ building and KRW 25,383,80 in total of value-added tax for ○○ building and KRW 11,631,940 in total of value-added tax for the same period from February 3, 2006 to KRW 37,015,740 in total, KRW 37,935,715,740 in total, KRW 9729636,75656.7).7

Note 2)