All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, and therefore, this is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiffs, as the grounds for appeal in this court, asserted that “The Plaintiffs received the Defendant’s reply that the instant individual land price does not fall under the subject of correction on December 10, 2014.” The Plaintiffs, who are general citizens, were bound to be aware that they constituted administrative disposition, and thus, filed the instant claim. If the first instance court first rejected the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit as unlawful from the beginning, the Plaintiffs could have taken part in other lawsuits to pay inheritance tax by making the instant real estate as a substitute, but the first instance court, which rejected the lawsuit for more than one year on the Plaintiffs’ claim, may have taken part in other lawsuits to pay inheritance tax.”

However, even if examining all of the records of this case, it is not deemed that there was any error in the procedure of the first instance court of this case, and it is recognized that the first instance court which rejected the plaintiffs' claims and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuits is justifiable.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the lawsuit of this case as stated in this conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.