1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is amended as stated in the following 2; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes,” but excluding the part on “3. conclusion”) is the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, except for the supplement and addition of judgment as stated in the following 3. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

2.The following shall be added between five pages 12 and 13:

In addition, it became clear that the source of the fund to acquire the property in question is one spouse who is not the nominal owner.

Even if the nominal owner is presumed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund from the spouse, and in this case, the taxpayer should assert and prove that the acquisition fund cannot be deemed to have been donated because the property concerned is not the unique property of the nominal owner but the title trust between the other spouse.

In order to reverse "the presumption of a special property" as stipulated in Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must bear the price for the property in question and prove that the other spouse acquired it in order to possess the property in fact. Thus, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that the presumption of a special property without any condition has been reversed, and that there was a title trust as to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8068 Decided September 25, 2008).

3. The supplementary and additional Plaintiffs, even in the 1980s, have been in the dominant structure of the society by strict family headship according to the Confucian Culture even though Korea has been in the dominant structure of the society. Under such a family headship, all of the property is in the husband’s name. Thus, the inherited property of this case is in fact the Plaintiff A’s property, which is the wife of the inheritee.