1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants expanded by this court, is as follows.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance that most of the judgments are cited in this case are as follows: "5,628 won (=216,382,514 won x 1/4) (hereinafter 54,053,679 won) that the plaintiff seeks within the scope of 54,095,628 won (hereinafter 54,095,628 won ± 216,382,514 ± 4)" and "54,095,628 won (hereinafter 9, 200)" are as follows: (a) part of Article 4-B (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the defendants' claims on the agreement on inheritance tax burden among the plaintiff and the defendants (No. 10,382,514 won x 1/4) and (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance that partially accepted the defendants' claims by the set-off of the defendants are as follows Article 14-12(b).7(1) of the first instance judgment (2).

2. The further determination of this Court

A. On August 19, 2016, in addition to the grounds for not recognizing the agreement on inheritance tax burden, the Plaintiff stated in the mobile phone message (No. 2) sent to the Defendants and H on August 19, 2016, that “The payment of a large amount of taxes (e.g., inheritance, gift tax, etc.) due to a small amount of taxes in the circumstances of the amount of taxes would not be all the obligations due to a strong mortgage and low pension loan, etc., but at the same time, the reason for such determination is as follows: “The balance of deposits in the name of the father-child” amounting to KRW 950 million at the tax office related to the collection of inheritance tax in this case’s policy to collect the amount of KRW 950 million at the next cost of “tax

8. 31. 31. The situation in which the inheritance-related property was postponed by the due date of payment was disclosed to the public, and it was expressed that the inheritance-related property was designed to reach an agreement by removing any misunderstanding and any defective appraisal.

this letter.