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

Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court, the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court (such as the law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts, and judgment on the issues, etc.) are sufficiently reasonable.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiffs’ grounds for appeal to be determined additionally as follows. Therefore, this Court shall accept the reasons for appeal, including the attached and summary form, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. As to the allegation that the report on the spouse's inherited property by the time limit for division of inherited property does not require the spouse's inheritance deduction

(1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The first instance court determined that the spouse's inheritance deduction applies only when the spouse's inheritance is reported by the due date of the division of inherited property by dividing the inherited property (if a registration is required, by the due date of the division of inherited property). However, the spouse's inheritance deduction under the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 19 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) provides that "the spouse's inheritance deduction under paragraph (1) shall apply only when the spouse's inherited property is registered by six months from the following day of the inheritance tax under the provisions of Article 67 (hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) (hereafter referred to as "registration, registration, change of title, etc." in this paragraph), while the spouse's inheritance deduction under paragraph (1) shall be made only when the spouse's inherited property is registered by the due date of the division and transfer of inherited property (hereafter referred to as "registration, transfer of title, etc." in this Article).

(2) Determination

The judgment of the first instance court contains the contents as alleged by the plaintiffs, but this is the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

In accordance with Article 19(2), the judgment of the court of first instance that "the fact of division of inherited property" shall be reported by the time limit for division of inherited property by dividing the inherited property (if the registration of division is required, the registration of division) pursuant to Article 19(2) shall be presumed to have stated that it is possible to grant a spouse's inheritance deduction by the time limit for division of inherited property, and even if not,

B. It is deemed that the registration of inheritance by the Plaintiffs and CCC was based on the agreement on division of inherited property.

with respect to the assertion that such action shall be

(1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

With respect to each real estate listed in the separate list No. 1, the Plaintiffs registered inheritance of 3/7 shares in relation to each of the 2/7 shares, which is subject to the agreement on the division of inherited property between the Plaintiffs and CCC. As such, the instant disposition is null and void.

(2) Determination

(A) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the elements for taxation, non-taxation, or tax reduction and exemption shall be avoided, and the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

Article 19(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the following: (a) agreement on division of inherited property until the time limit for division of inherited property by the spouse’s inheritance deduction; (b) registration following the agreement on division of inherited property in the case of inherited property requiring registration; and (3) reporting on division of inherited property. Thus, in order to nullify the disposition in this case, the disposition in this case should have been invalidated clearly equipped; and (b) considering the retroactive effect of division of inherited property (Article 1015 of the Civil Act), it cannot be said that there is any obstacle to the interpretation of

(B) Since the Plaintiffs and CCC registered inheritance, the Plaintiffs agreed on the division of inherited property.

Since it is alleged that a registration has been made pursuant to this, it is first judged as to whether it can be seen as such (such as ①, ② requirements).

1) An agreement on the division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive by wholly or partially owning the inherited property, which became a provisional co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, or performing it as a new co-ownership relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). According to Article 1015 of the Civil Act, the property belonging to each co-inheritors by division of inherited property is already succeeded to a person who was directly divided from the inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da5836, Sept. 12, 1989).

2) In addition, according to Article 1006 of the Civil Act, inherited property belongs to co-ownership of the inheritor, and according to the proviso of Article 265 of the Civil Act, preservation of the jointly-owned property may be done individually. Thus, one of the inheritors may apply for registration on the ground of inheritance by attaching a document certifying inheritance for the entire inheritor. In such a case, all of the co-inheritors shall be the applicant, and the remaining inheritors shall apply for registration according to their statutory shares in inheritance, and there shall be no registration on the inheritance shares of some inheritors, so the registration on the ground of inheritance shall not be registered on the ground of inheritance, so it shall not be recognized that the agreement on the division of inherited property has been completed among the co-inheritors as stated in the registration (in addition to the document certifying inheritance, if an application for registration is filed by attaching a document certifying the division of inherited property, registration shall be completed by agreement division).

3) In full view of the foregoing principles of no taxation without law and the legal nature of the agreement on division of inherited property, and the differences in registration due to the division of inheritance and inheritance due to the division of inheritance, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs and CCC made an agreement on division of inherited property under the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and registered accordingly solely on the ground that they were registered due to the division of inheritance.

(C) Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting the fact that the Plaintiffs and CCC reported the division of inherited property by the time limit for the division of inherited property, or there is no evidence supporting the purport that it cannot divide inherited property within the time limit for the division of inherited property by the spouse’s inherited property pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Inheritance Tax

(D) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit (Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) that requires a spouse to report the division of the inherited property by the time limit for filing a claim for inheritance deduction as a requirement for the recognition of the spouse’s inheritance deduction), and there is a legitimate legislative purpose to prevent the spouse’s spouse from attempting to transfer inherited property without compensation by way of transferring the inherited property to the heir after receiving the inheritance deduction, and to early determine the legal relationship with respect to inheritance tax. However, in cases where there is an inevitable circumstance where it is difficult to complete division of inherited property within the statutory period, such outcome of the trial without opening a way to reflect it in the calculation of inheritance tax, and thus, it is difficult to see that the spouse’s property rights were violated by the ex post request for correction after the lapse of the above period for inheritance.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.