1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s claim and tort regarding the amount of reimbursement equivalent to the amount of reimbursement for the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax.

1. The judgment of the party prior to the remanding of the case after the remanding of the case, which is subject to the trial, partially accepted the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants for reimbursement equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's inheritance tax and additional dues paid in lieu of the defendants' inheritance tax and additional dues, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages equivalent to the plaintiff's additional dues by subrogation of the F, H, and G, and the claim for reimbursement equivalent to the loan interest and the claim for reimbursement corresponding to the amount of the loan interest are dismissed, and all of the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the plaintiff

As to the Plaintiff’s appeal, the judgment of remanding the Plaintiff’s appeal is all dismissed. Of the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the party prior to remanding the case, the Defendants’ appeal regarding ① “the portion of the indemnity related to the withdrawal on August 21, 2008 and March 25, 2010,” and ② “the portion equivalent to the Plaintiff’s additional dues,” were partially accepted, and reversed. However, all of the grounds of appeal as to the Defendants’ defense against the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim were dismissed. Since the case was remanded to the trial court, the subject of the judgment after remand is limited to the above reversed and remanded portion, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s main claim does not constitute the subject of the judgment after remanding the Plaintiff’s main claim, but it appears necessary to clarify the final and conclusive portion for convenience, such as the execution procedure, etc., and thus, the judgment should also be reflected in this part within the necessary limit. Furthermore, this part of the judgment should also be explained within the necessary limit.

2. Basic facts

(a) disposition of inheritance tax 1) the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the network”);

The deceased on September 16, 2006, and the F, the spouse, was 3/13, the Plaintiff, G, and H.