1. The defendant shall pay 103,253,512 won to the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, 5, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 7, witness D's testimony and arguments:

The plaintiffs, E, D, and F are successors of G who died on August 22, 2007, and the defendant was delegated by the above successors as certified tax accountants with inheritance tax reporting duties.

B. On February 22, 2008, the Defendant reported inheritance tax amounting to KRW 567,054,457 by designating H and I as the heir of Plaintiffs, E, D and net G’s grandchildren and F’s children as inheritance tax obligor.

C. On July 4, 2012, H and I filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea claiming the return of the inheritance tax paid as unjust enrichment since the Defendant’s inheritance tax return was wrong (Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap5654), and on September 10, 2012, the Yongsan Tax Office decided to refund KRW 246,00,000 of the inheritance tax paid by H and I on the ground of erroneous payment.

The Yongsansan Tax Office notified the Plaintiffs, E, and D of KRW 646,166,95 of the inheritance tax amount corrected by the inheritance tax decision resolution, including KRW 219,165,064, which was incurred due to the decision of refund to H and I on December 12, 2012, and the Plaintiffs are paying inheritance tax with the permission of annual payment.

On the other hand, the Yongsan Tax Department treated 230,096,52 won paid by H and I in the original decision as the amount of voluntary payment, but calculated the amount of voluntary payment in the decision of correction as zero won.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, who was a tax accountant, neglected to review laws and regulations, filed a return on the deceased G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G's payment due to his negligence, and the plaintiffs were liable for additional payment. The defendant violated the duty of due care of a good manager to comply with the plaintiffs, 123,89,97