All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court determined that: (a) based on the adopted evidence, C succeeded to the property of H, I, and J; (b) based on the following facts: (c) on Jan. 10, 1985, Libera State established ECop Corporation (hereinafter “instant SPC”) on Apr. 17, 1986; and (c) on Jun. 6, 2007, C died on June 6, 2007; and (d) on the grounds that C’s children between the Plaintiff, B, and B, and B, who are the spouse, succeeded to the property; and (c) on the grounds that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have established and operated the instant property, including the inheritance tax, for the sake of establishing and operating the instant PC’s inherited property, on the following grounds: (a) on the grounds that the value of the instant property cannot be deemed to have been included in the inheritance tax and additional tax.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the substance over form principle, violating the rules of evidence

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and found the following facts: ① ownership relationship of the instant SPC at the time of commencement of the inheritance; ② there is no balance remaining in the deposit account in the name of the instant SPC at the time of death of C; ③ even if the amount equivalent to the instant money was transferred to the Switzerland bank account or used for the purchase of securities, it still remains at the time of commencement of the inheritance.