A. The plaintiffs' conjunctive claim against the defendant Gap tax office is dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

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

(a) The primary claim

1) Defendant A’s head of the tax office’s imposition of inheritance tax on February 1, 2012 against the Plaintiffs: (i) the imposition of inheritance tax on March 1, 2013; (ii) the respective dispositions on default on May 3, 2013; (iii) the collection of delinquent taxes on February 13, 2014; (iv) the imposition of delinquent taxes on February 28, 2014 and August 18, 2014; and (v) the revocation of inheritance tax rectification on September 3, 2015; and (v) the confirmation that the revocation of inheritance tax rectification is all null and void;

2) The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 5,00,000 won and 5% per annum from January 1, 2014 to the service date of a duplicate of the instant complaint, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

(b) Preliminary claim

[Plaintiffs filed in the first instance trial for the revocation of the inheritance tax rejection disposition against Defendant A, and for the return of unjust enrichment against Defendant A at the first instance trial, and sought for the revocation of the inheritance tax imposition, disposition on default, collection, and revocation of the inheritance tax rejection disposition against Defendant A, and for the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, the Plaintiff added or reduced claims to revoke the inheritance tax rejection disposition against the head of the tax office A as a preliminary claim.]

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The disposition rejecting inheritance tax correction rendered by the director of the tax office against the plaintiffs on September 3, 2015 shall be revoked. The defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the plaintiffs 5 million won each and 5% interest per annum from June 1, 2015 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding "The chief of the tax office of the second instance imposed an inheritance tax of KRW 2,096,861,060 on February 1, 2012 on the plaintiffs" at the third bottom of the judgment of the second instance, and this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the second instance (section 7 through 8 at the bottom of the judgment of the second instance). Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) The primary claim

1) The head of the tax office assessed the market price of each land of this case as KRW 0,00,000,000 based on the officially assessed individual land price, and imposed inheritance tax on the plaintiffs. However, in the course of the public sale by entrusting the Korea Asset Management Corporation with the disposal of each land of this case, the appraisal corporation assessed the appraisal value of each land of this case as KRW 0,00,000,000, which is less than the publicly assessed individual land price. Therefore, the disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case is null and void, since there is a defect that erroneously assessed the market price of each land of this case, and the defect is serious and obvious. Accordingly, the disposition imposing the inheritance tax of this case is also null and void, and the subsequent disposition rejecting the correction of

2) In addition, the head of Defendant A’s tax office fully informed the circumstances in which the individual land price of each of the instant lands was excessively calculated during the process of the above public sale, and thus, failed to rectify ex officio the invalid disposition of inheritance tax or to notify the Plaintiffs of a request for correction. Furthermore, he rejected the Plaintiffs’ request for correction. Therefore, the disposition of this case, the disposition of collection, and the disposition of refusal to correct inheritance tax, which violated the Constitution, Article 81-16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 4 and 25 of the Administrative Procedures Act, are null and void

3) Since the imposition of inheritance tax, disposition on default, disposition on collection, and disposition on refusal of inheritance tax correction against the plaintiffs by the head of the tax office of defendant Gap is invalid due to the serious and clear defects as above, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs the amount of 5,000,000 won as part of the inheritance tax erroneously paid or overpaid to the plaintiffs and damages for delay.

(b) Preliminary claim

The disposition of inheritance tax by the head of the tax office of the defendant Gap is illegal because there is a defect in the assessment of the market price of each land of this case, and the plaintiffs erroneously paid inheritance tax, so the disposition of refusal to correct the inheritance tax of this case by the head of the tax office

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that the evaluation of inherited property shall be based on the market price, and Article 60(3) of the same Act provides that in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price of inherited property, the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 shall be deemed the market price, taking into account the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant property, and Article 61(1)1 of the same Act provides that in cases of land, the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 shall be appraised by the publicly announced individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8502, Sept. 26, 197).

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and the argument in this case, it can be recognized that there was no transaction example, expropriation value, and appraisal value within 6 months before and after the date of commencing the inheritance of each of the land in this case, and there was no adjacent land similar to each of the land in this case. Thus, in the case of each of the land in this case, it can be deemed that it is difficult to calculate the market price. Accordingly, the inheritance tax disposition that the head of the defendant Gap tax office assessed each of the land in this case as the officially assessed individual land price of this case is legitimate. Even if it is not difficult to calculate the market price, in order for the taxation disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an unlawful ground for the disposition in this case, and its defect is in violation of important laws and regulations, and it is difficult to view it as a material and obvious defect to evaluate the inherited property as a publicly assessed individual land price, and there is no reason to see this part of this part of this part,

5. Determination on the conjunctive claim

The court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of the first instance (the judgment of the court of the first instance)

Of the 4th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the "preliminary claim", and the "action by the plaintiff against the defendant Gap's chief of the tax office" at the second bottom of the 5th parallel parallel parallel line with the corresponding part, except for the modification to the plaintiff's preliminary claim, it is identical to the corresponding part. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants are dismissed as they are without merit, and they are dismissed as preliminary claims against the defendant Gap chief of the tax office. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.