1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 97,500,763 as well as to the plaintiff on August 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on August 20, 2003, and as the deceased’s heir, the Defendant, a male, female, female, and the third female joint Plaintiff B, C, and D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) of the first instance court, both of which were the deceased and the deceased’s heir.

B. At the time of the death of the deceased, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant organized the inherited property of the deceased as follows, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant received cash of KRW 400 million, and the Defendant, C, and D inherited the deceased’s business and real property, but agreed on the division of inherited property to acquire the deceased’s liabilities together (hereinafter “instant division agreement”).

The details of the property liabilities (including the original obligation) amount of 4,806,000,000 financial institutions with the estimated real estate amount of 3,321,367,000 installment savings and 638,800,000 cash loans and 3 other than 238,000,0000 G deposit 22,000,0000 G deposit 220,000,000 H 210,000 scheduled expenditure (excluding apartment houses) for the total of 5,46,80,000,000 total of 5,466,80,000,000 total of 4,09,367,367,000

C. Upon delegation from the plaintiffs on February 18, 2004, the defendant reported to the tax authorities the inheritance tax amounting to 56,366,535 won to be paid by the plaintiffs and the defendant on February 18, 2004. However, the National Tax Service conducted a tax investigation from December 20, 2004 to March 30, 2005 (hereinafter "tax investigation of this case"), and as a result, conducted the tax investigation of this case (hereinafter "tax investigation of this case").

9. Around November, 199, inheritance tax was imposed on the plaintiffs and the defendant 3.4 million won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 4-1 to 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the following assets of the Plaintiff’s assertion fall under the deceased’s inherited property, the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff and excluded it from the subject of the instant divided consultation, so the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s inherited shares out of its value.

At the time of the instant division consultation, the Defendant was a corporate private enterprise operated by the Deceased, and around 2012.