2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 49,572,380 won and 45,985,154 won among them, 5% per annum from March 20, 208 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 3,587,26 won per annum from March 20, 208 to the judgment date of the appellate court from March 20, 208, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff claimed 46,883,624 won and damages for delay from the next day to the day of full payment, and partly expanded the claims in the appellate court).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff is revoked. The defendants shall pay to the plaintiff 3,587,226 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 20, 208 to the date of the judgment of the court of appeal, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff claimed for reimbursement of all inheritance tax and acquisition tax, but the judgment of the court of first instance accepted only part of the portion of the inheritance tax payment. Since the plaintiff extended part of the purport of the claim by filing an incidental appeal only to the portion of the inheritance tax, this part is subject to the judgment of the court).

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning in addition to the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance that "the instant case" in Section 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the court of first instance". Thus, the court's explanation on this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the plaintiff's assertion "A. The plaintiff's assertion and Nos. 11 to 12, 14, i.e., the plaintiff's allegation are as follows, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the inheritance tax borne by the public auction of this case is KRW 257,516,863, the plaintiff's share of inheritance tax is KRW 158,372,102, the excess amount of KRW 99,144,761 is paid by the defendants on behalf of the defendants. As a result, the defendants are exempted from the duty of inheritance tax payment within the scope of the above amount. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 49,572,380 equivalent to the percentage of inheritance tax paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff as above.

3) The inheritance tax share of the Plaintiff and the Defendants

(a)the inheritance tax amount;

In the above public sale procedure, the sales price of the real estate for the public sale in this case is KRW 834,351,470, and the disposition fee for arrears is KRW 24,965,50, and the inheritance tax in arrears is KRW 774,516,850, which was issued to the director of the Busan District Tax Office, and was 750,105,890. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the disposition fee for arrears in the inheritance tax is KRW 22,44,70 ( KRW 24,965,50 x 750,105,890 x KRW 750,834,351,470, and below KRW 750,590 ( KRW 750,890, KRW 24,700), including the disposition fee for arrears that the above co-inheritors should pay.

B) The inheritance tax burden of 5/42 shares out of the real estate No. 1 of this case that Defendant 1 donated to the Plaintiff

Meanwhile, Defendant 1’s inheritance tax on the 5/42 shares of the instant real estate that Defendant 1 donated to the Plaintiff was impliedly agreed upon, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on Defendant 1’s burden of inheritance tax amount is unreasonable.

살피건대, 갑6 내지 8호증, 갑9, 11호증의 각 1, 을5호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ㉮ 망인은 2001. 9. 17. 별지 목록 기재 부동산 중 ①을 원고에게, ②를 피고 1에게 각 유증하는 내용의 유언공정증서(이하 ‘제1유언’이라 한다)를 작성하였다가, 2003. 2. 26. 이 사건 제1부동산을 원고와 피고들에게 각 1/3 지분씩 유증하는 내용으로 유언공정증서(이하 ‘제2유언’이라 한다)를 새로이 작성하였는데, 원고조차도 제2유언의 효력자체에 대하여 문제제기를 하지는 않고 있는 점, ㉯ 이에 피고 1은 2003. 3. 11. 제2유언이 효력을 발생하게 되면, 이 사건 제1부동산에 대한 자신의 1/3 지분 중 1/2을 원고에게 증여하기로 하면서, 만약 유류분청구가 있는 경우 위 각 지분에 대한 유류분을 공제하고 나머지 부분에서 위 비율과 같이 분배하기로 약정하였는데, 이는 피고 1이 사촌인 원고와의 원만한 관계를 유지하기 위하여 순수한 호의로 한 것으로 보이는 점, ㉰ 제2유언으로 인하여 원고뿐 아니라 피고 1도 제1유언의 경우보다 상속받는 재산이 줄어들게 되었는데, 새로이 수증자의 지위를 갖게 된 피고 2가 원고에 대한 배려차원에서 그 상속지분 중 일부를 원고에게 증여하는 것은 이해할 여지도 있으나, 상속재산이 줄어들게 된 피고 1이 자신의 상속재산 중 일부를 원고에게 증여하면서 그에 대한 상속세까지 추가로 부담하기로 했다는 것은 선뜻 납득하기 어렵고, 을4호증의 1, 2, 을5호증의 각 기재에 비추어 볼 때 갑12, 14, 15호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고 1이 이처럼 원고를 배려해야 할 특별한 사정이 있었다고 보기에 부족하며 달리 이를 인정할 별다른 증거도 없는 점, ㉱ 만약, 원고의 주장과 같이 그 상속세까지 자신이 부담하는 내용이었다면 당시 아직 학생신분이었던 피고 1이 모친인 소외 2의 동의조차 얻지 않고 위와 같은 증여계약을 체결할 수는 없었을 것으로 보일 뿐 아니라, 추가로 상속세를 부담하면서까지 상속지분을 재분배하는 것이 원만한 친척관계를 유지하는데 있어서 필수적이었다면 굳이 증여계약을 체결할 것이 아니라 망인으로 하여금 새로이 유언을 하도록 하는 것이 훨신 간이하고 경제적인 방법인 것으로 보이는 점, ㉲ 피고 1로서는 망인에 대한 상속절차가 모두 마무리 된 후에 원고에 대하여 자신의 상속지분을 양도함으로써 제1유언에 비하여 줄어든 상속재산을 보상해 줄 수도 있음에도 굳이 제2유언 직후에 위 증여계약을 체결한 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 원고와 피고 1이 증여계약을 체결할 당시의 의사는 제2유언에 의하여 줄어든 원고의 상속지분을 보상하여 제1유언에 준하는 상태로 회복시키려는 것으로 판단되는데, 당초 제1유언에 따라 유증이 이루어질 경우 제1부동산 중 1/6 지분에 대한 상속세는 당연히 원고가 부담하도록 되어 있었던 점, ㉳ 이에 대하여 원고는 자신은 이미 증여세 49,103,810원을 부담하였으므로 2중으로 상속세를 부담하는 것은 부당하다는 취지로 주장하나, 이처럼 상속세와 증여세를 2중으로 부담하게 된 것은 제2유언에 따른 재산상속을 제1유언에 준하도록 변경시키기 위한 과정에서 필수적으로 소요되는 비용으로 판단되고, 결국 이는 그 과정을 통하여 이득을 얻게 되는 원고가 부담하는 것이 당연해 보이는 점, ㉴ 그런데, 그 이후 친척사이의 관계가 멀어지게 되어 피고 1이 위 증여약속을 제대로 이행하지 않자, 원고는 피고 1을 상대로 위 증여를 원인으로 하여 이 사건 제1부동산 중 1/6 지분에 대한 소유권이전등기청구를 하여 2004. 11. 18. 승소판결(부산지방법원 2004가합561) 을 선고받았고 이 판결은 2004. 12. 22. 그대로 확정되었는데, 피고 1이 호의로 증여계약을 체결해 주고서도 이처럼 임의로 이행하지 않은 것은 자신이 증여하기로 한 일부 상속지분에 대하여 원고 스스로 권리를 확보하는 것은 용인하되 자신은 소유권이전 및 상속세부담 등에 일체 관여 또는 협조하지 않겠다는 의사를 명확히 밝힌 것으로 볼 여지도 배제하기 어려운 점 등을 종합적으로 고려할 때, 피고 1이 원고에게 증여한 이 사건 제1부동산 중 5/42 지분에 대한 상속세는 원고가 부담하는 것이 상당한 것으로 판단된다.

C)the calculation of inheritance tax charges;

Therefore, among the above inheritance tax amount, the plaintiff's share x 236,48,546 [72,50,590 won x [2,031,00 won per annum 14/42) x (16,436,320 won per share of the plaintiff's inheritance over the first real estate x 5/14) x (36,20 won per share of the plaintiff's inheritance over the second real estate x 335,26,680 x 1/7) x 30 (the plaintiff's share of the third real estate x 360) 】 (the total value of the third real estate 】 40,548,00 won per cash and other property x 1/7) 】 (the plaintiff's share of the real estate 】 the total value of the inherited property 】 20,548,00 won per annum 14,570,705 won per real estate 】

(C) The Plaintiff’s amount of inheritance tax indemnity against the Defendants

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff owned 7/21 shares in the instant public auction at the time of the above public auction, and the amount of inheritance tax, including expenses for disposition on default, to be paid by the above co-inheritors, totaling KRW 772,550,590, is as seen earlier. As such, inheritance tax including expenses for disposition on default, which the Plaintiff incurred from the sale of shares due to the above public auction, is KRW 257,516,863 ( KRW 77,550,590 x 7/21). The Plaintiff’s share of inheritance tax was KRW 236,48,546, as seen above. Thus, the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance tax was 21,028,317 ( KRW 257,516,863 - KRW 236,48,546) to the Defendants, who were co-inheritors, within the scope of their share of inheritance tax to be paid by the Defendants, within the extent of their share of inheritance tax to be paid by the Defendants within the extent of KRW 151,281,254,254.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the "Evidence A8" of No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "No. 10 of the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance," and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion of No. 6 or 9 of the 14th judgment of the court of first instance.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,514,158 won each and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 20, 2008, which is the day following the date of delivery of the above inheritance, to December 11, 2009, which is the date when the dispute over the existence and scope of the above obligation is rendered by the defendants, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance ordering payment to the defendants in excess of the above recognized scope is unfair, the defendants' appeal is partially accepted, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed, and the defendants' remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

【Omission of Inheritance List】

Judges Ahn Young-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-chul

Note 1) Shares in the aggregate of 3/14 shares in inheritance and 5/42 shares in inheritance granted by Defendant 1

Note 2) Shares in inheritance 3/14 less 5/42 of the shares donated to the Plaintiff.