유류분반환청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 in the first instance court's explanation concerning this case shall be as follows: the fifth part of the second part of the judgment in the first instance, the fifth part, the third part, the third part, the third part, the fourth part, the fourth part and the fourth part, the network F, the fourth part, the fifth part of the judgment, each, "the network F," the fourth part of the second part and the fourth part of the judgment, "the June 13, 2013," the fourth part of the judgment, "W, May 30, 2014," the fourth part and "W, February 11, 2004," the fourth part of the judgment in the second part, "AF," and the second part, the second part from the second to the bottom of the judgment to the bottom of the second part, shall be replaced by the second part of the judgment in the second part, "AF," and the second part, from the bottom to the bottom of the judgment, the second part, other than the second part, shall be replaced by the second part of the judgment.
2. Due shift part "3. Judgment"
(a) The calculation method of shortage in legal reserve of inheritance shall be as follows:
Shortage in the legal reserve = [A] 】 The amount of the property that forms the basis for calculating the legal reserve 】 the ratio of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance (B) - The amount of the special benefit of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance (C) - The amount of the net contribution of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance (D) ? The amount of the legal reserve of inheritance - B = the amount of the inheritance obligation of the inheritee 1/23 = the amount of the property acquired by the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance - the amount of the property acquired by the person entitled to
B. 1) The Plaintiff calculated the Plaintiff’s shortage of legal reserve of inheritance on the premise that the “V land donated by the deceased AD from the deceased G is not a special benefit of the Plaintiff or the deceased AD.” As such, the Plaintiff first considered the shortage of legal reserve of inheritance on the premise that: (a) according to the description of the evidence No. 2-3, and No. 6, as to the V land from the deceased G on August 17, 200, the registration of ownership transfer was completed from the deceased G on August 16, 200 to the deceased AD on August 16, 200; and (b) there has not been a long period of time. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17358, Jan. 1, 2001>