1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff and E, etc., the heir of the decedent B, were deceased and the inheritance commenced, submitted to the Defendant on October 29, 2009, and completed the agreement on the division of inherited property to vest in the Plaintiff at the time of paying inheritance tax, and the agreement on the division of inherited property was completed. The written agreement on June 4, 2013 was drafted in a form to confirm the agreement on the division of inherited property as above for the convenience of applying for a refund of capital gains tax after the commencement of inheritance. 2) Even if the agreement on the division of inherited property was concluded at

Even if the sale price of the trust land of this case also constitutes inherited property subject to division, the agreement of this case is a consultation on division of inherited property pursuant to Article 1013 of the Civil Act, and its effect is retroactive to the time inheritance commences pursuant to Article 1015 of the Civil Act.

3) In other words, the Plaintiff and E, who are the inheritors of the instant trust land, independently inherited the instant trust land and acquired the proceeds from the division, but the Defendant violated the substance over form doctrine by rendering the instant disposition, which neglected such economic substance, based on the formal phrase of the instant written agreement on division. Accordingly, the instant trust land was owned solely by the Plaintiff, based on the agreement on division of inherited property by co-inheritors at the time of the commencement of the inheritance or on the retroactive effect of the instant agreement on division. Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) relevant laws and regulations;