The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that the shares in the name of H among the instant land and buildings constituted a title trust held by D, who is the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”), to H, and thus constitutes inherited property of the deceased.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax disposition, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principle on the burden of proof or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the gist of this part of the ground of appeal is that the F’s share in the instant land and buildings is not an inherited property of the inheritee, and thus, the value of inherited property should be calculated except for those shares. The court below omitted its judgment

However, according to the records, the plaintiffs only submitted an application for resumption of the pleading in which such assertion was stated after the closing of argument in the court below, but no such assertion was made.

Therefore, the allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since it newly claims in the final appeal that the plaintiffs did not assert in the fact-finding court or asserts the omission of judgment in the fact-finding court.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.