Whether the qualifications of a person who is not the other party to an administrative disposition and, if there are two or more parties, whether the procedure for the previous trial is legitimate through only one person.

Even if the other party to the administrative disposition is not the other party to the administrative disposition, a person who is subject to illegal and unjust infringement may institute an administrative litigation to seek cancellation of the administrative disposition for illegal and unjust reasons. Thus, even if the person is not a taxpayer of the tax disposition of this case, a person who has a significant interest in the infringement of property right as a result of the tax disposition of this case is in the position to institute an administrative litigation to seek cancellation of the administrative disposition, and as long as there are several persons due to a single administrative disposition, one of them has the opportunity to correct the administrative disposition through the procedure of the previous trial, the other right holder may institute an administrative litigation without going through the procedure of the previous trial.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Nu196 delivered on December 28, 1975 73Nu96 and97 delivered on May 13, 1975 (Dakh 11000; Supreme Court Decision 23Nu21 delivered on May 13, 197, Article 1 (275) 1178 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Court Gazette 514No840 delivered on April 29, 1958 (Dakh 3103 delivered on December 31, 197; Supreme Court Decision 2(27)186 of the Administrative Litigation Act delivered on April 29, 1958

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Head of Eastern Tax Office

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The disposition that the defendant imposed KRW 116,981,041 on the plaintiffs on November 15, 1972 by the defendant shall be revoked. The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The facts that the defendant imposed KRW 167,854,018 on the plaintiff 1 on December 30, 1971 are without dispute between the parties and that the plaintiff 1,23, 5, and 6, Eul evidence 1-1,23, 5-1, 5-4, and 1 are recognized as the signature and seal of the plaintiff 1 without dispute between the parties concerned, and thus, considering the above contents and the whole purport of the oral argument of evidence No. 5-2, the deceased non-party 1 died on June 29, 1971 and jointly inherited the deceased's property to the plaintiff 1 as the sole heir of the above deceased's property on September 29, 1971, the defendant filed a return of inheritance tax with the plaintiff 1 as a taxpayer for tax payment, the above tax amount on the plaintiff 1 and the above tax amount on the plaintiff 14, 1971 and the above tax amount on the plaintiff 16,24,1971.

The plaintiffs jointly inherited the deceased's property due to the death of the deceased non-party 1. The defendant considered the value of the plaintiffs' inherited property as 336,107,470 won, and calculated 298,989,679 won after deducting the amount prescribed in Articles 4, 5, and 11 of the Inheritance Tax Act from that amount as tax base, and calculated 164,758,818 won according to the inheritance tax rate as to that amount, and imposed 116,981,041 won after deducting the amount of 47,777,777 won paid by the plaintiff 1's voluntary payment from that tax amount. In this case, the defendant imposed 1 on the plaintiff 1, that the plaintiff 1 should not be jointly liable for tax assessment because the plaintiff 1 should be jointly liable for tax assessment because the plaintiff 1's remaining real estate and shares are included in the inheritance property, not the property inherited, but the plaintiff 1 should be jointly liable for tax assessment.

Therefore, first, in the lawsuit of this case, whether the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 are standing to sue and whether the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 is legitimate without going through the pre-trial procedure under the National Tax Examination Request Act for the taxation disposition of this case.

Even if the other party to an administrative disposition is not the other party to an administrative disposition, a person who is subject to illegal and unjust infringement may file an administrative lawsuit seeking cancellation of the administrative disposition. In this case, although the plaintiff 1 is the taxpayer, the fact that the plaintiff 1's disposal of the whole property jointly inherited by the plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased non-party 1 is clear in light of the above facts of recognition. Therefore, even if the plaintiff 1 is not the taxpayer of the tax disposition of this case, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 are the taxpayer of the tax disposition of this case, who have a significant interest in the violation of property rights as a result of the tax disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs are in a position to assert and seek cancellation of the administrative disposition of this case, and there is no need to file an administrative lawsuit against the plaintiff 1 by the plaintiff 1 et al.

The next decision is made with respect to the illegality of taxation disposition of this case.

In light of Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 1-2, 3, 5-1, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, and Eul evidence No. 3-1-2, each of the above statements No. 4-1, witness No. 1-2, and the deceased's testimony and evidence No. 1-6 were not found to be non-party No. 1-5, and the court below found that the plaintiff No. 1-6 was non-party No. 1-6's shares were non-party No. 1-6's non-party No. 7's non-party No. 1-party No. 1-6's non-party No. 8's testimony and evidence No. 97's non-party No. 1-party No.

Therefore, as above, even if the registration of preservation of ownership of the above real estate was made on January 17, 1972, which was after the death of the deceased on the ground that the registration of preservation of ownership was purchased from the deceased non-party 1 on December 29, 1970 from the deceased non-party 1, it is clear that the above registration was made by the compromise of false contents prepared after the death of the deceased in order to reduce the amount of inheritance tax in light of the fact that the above real estate and shares were not recorded as the purchase assets of the company on the settlement of accounts in the company 1970, and that there was no trace of understanding of the price paid by the company or any other consideration equivalent thereto, and that the above registration was made by the compromise of the above false contents prepared after the death of the deceased in order to reduce the amount of inheritance tax. In light of the fact that the above shares were not sealed until the death of the deceased, it is evident that the above real estate and shares

Therefore, when the defendant considers the plaintiff as a taxpayer of inheritance tax pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act after the death of the deceased and investigates the inherited property for the purpose of determining the tax amount on the grounds that the tax return is unreasonable, the above real estate and shares are recognized as part of the inherited property, such as the above recognition, and calculates the value of the inherited property including the real estate and shares, and imposes this tax on the plaintiff 1 pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act based on this, shall be a legitimate disposition.

Therefore, since it is clear that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Han Man-kn (Presiding Judge)

Judge Choi Byung-hee is unable to sign and seal due to transfer.

single judge-Appellee of the presiding judge

Judges Nam-ho