(name omitted)

Attorney (Presiding Justice)

(name omitted)

Attorney (Presiding Justice)

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

D. The defendant shall execute the registration procedure for transfer. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 79, 595, 625 and the plaintiff on July 29, 2006.

ter 5% per annum until the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

(1) pay the amount of money calculated in the proportion of each of the following.

(a) Relationship between the Parties

(1) On October 1, 1961, A maintained a matrimonial relationship with B, and B created the Plaintiff between B and B, and B entered the Plaintiff into the Plaintiff’s family register as B and entered the Plaintiff’s mother as B. (2) The Defendant was living together with B from 1991 to her death. (3) On June 27, 1982, A died on June 28, 2006, and B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) died on July 28, 2006.

B. A donation of the deceased’s property (1) on December 15, 2005, the deceased donated the real estate listed in [Attachment Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) to the defendant on December 15, 2005, and on the 19th of the same month, the deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on each of the above real estate.

(2) On August 1, 2005, the Deceased sold the site and building on its own (number omitted) and donated to the Defendant 100,000,000,000 won to Nonparty 2, and 20,000,000 won to Nonparty 3, 20,000, and 60,000,000 won to Nonparty 3, and 60,000,000 won to △△△ Foundation (hereinafter “Nonindicted Foundation”). On August 1, 2005, the Defendant purchased the real estate in the name of the Defendant listed in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant real estate 3”). On August 3, 2005, the Defendant registered the ownership of the said real estate under the name of the Defendant.

( 4 ) 한편, 원고는 1992. 2. 18. 망인으로부터 받은 600, 000, 000원으로 ( 지번 생략 ) 지상 건물 ( 이하 ' ■■동 건물 ' 이라 한다 ) 을 매수하였다 ( 피고는 당시 위 건물의 시가가 1, 200, 000, 000원 상당에 이르렀다고 주장하나 이를 인정할 증거가 없고, 원고가 위 건물의 시가가 600, 000, 000원에서 700, 000, 000원 정도라고 진술하고 있으므로, 원고는 당시 망인으로부터 적어도 600, 000, 000원을 받았음을 자인하고 있다고 볼 것이다 ) .

C. At the time of death, there was no particular inheritance or obligation on the deceased.

D. On August 9, 2007, a copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to recover legal reserve of inheritance against the Defendant was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) was that the defendant received the real estate of this case before the deceased's birth, and the plaintiff, the only inheritor at the time of the death, who did not have any particular inheritance or debt, did not inherit any property or debt from the deceased. Since the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance was infringed upon due to donation to the defendant of the above deceased, the defendant, as the return of the infringed legal reserve of inheritance, is obligated to take procedures for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above real estate and pay to the plaintiff the remaining shortage of legal reserve of inheritance of KRW 79,595,625 (the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance of KRW 540,80,750, total value of basic property of legal reserve of inheritance of KRW 190,808,750, total value of each of the above real estate of this case 190,808,750). (2) The defendant asserted that the plaintiff received money from the deceased from the deceased, but whether the plaintiff received special property division of inheritance, and whether there is a special inheritance of the plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff is not the natural father of the deceased, and the report of natural father did not meet the requirements of adoption. Thus, the Plaintiff is not the inheritor of the deceased.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s heir, the deceased knew the Plaintiff of the gift to the Defendant on January 2006, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after one year from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of legal reserve has expired.

( 3 ) 원고는 1992. 2. 경 망인으로부터 ■■동 건물의 매수자금을 증여받았으므로, 이미 유류분액을 초과하는 특별수익을 받았다 .

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is the deceased’s heir

As seen earlier, although the plaintiff is not the father of the deceased, the report of birth of the natural father as the father's intention, and if the adoption satisfies the practical requirements, the adoption becomes effective even if the form is somewhat erroneous, and in this case, the report of birth of the natural father has the function of the report of adoption, which is a legal parent-child relationship, which is the father of the father of the deceased (Supreme Court Decision 200 Jun. 200)

9. 선고 99므1633, 1640 판결 등 참조 ), 기록 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉, 망인은 친자식이 없었던 점, 망인이 사망할 때까지 친생자 출생신고에 대하여 이의 하였음을 인정할 자료가 없는 점, 망인이 1992. 2. 경 원고에게 ■■동 건물 매수자금을 지급한 점, 망인이 사망할 때까지 원고와 망인 사이에 계속 왕래가 있었던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 망인의 의사는 원고를 입양하기로 하는 의사였고, 그에 기한 신분적 생활도 수반되었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고는 망인의 법정상속인이 된다 할 것이다. 따라서 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다 .

B. Determination on the statute of limitations defense

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff knew that each of the instant lands was donated to the Defendant at the above date of the Defendant’s assertion, and further, there is no evidence to prove that the said gift should be returned as it infringed on the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. Determination of shortage in the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance (1) method of calculating shortage in legal reserve of inheritance

The shortage of the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance may be calculated as follows:

Shortage in legal reserve of inheritance = [The ratio of the person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance (A) x the ratio of the legal reserve of inheritance (B) - the special benefit amount of the person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance (C) - the net benefit amount of the person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance (D)] = the amount of active inherited property + the amount of inheritance obligation

B = 1/2C for lineal descendants of an inheritee, the amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance = The amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance + the amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance

D = The amount of property acquired by inheritance of the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance - The legal reserve of inheritance (A) (A) shall be calculated based on the value of the property donated for one year prior to the commencement of inheritance and the amount obtained by deducting the amount of inheritance obligations. Article 1008 of the Civil Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 1118 of the Civil Act provides that "if there are co-inheritors who received a donation or testamentary gift of the property from the inheritee, it shall be deemed that there are shares of inheritance to the extent of the shortage in property. This is to be considered in calculating the amount of inheritance for the equitable inheritance among co-inheritors where there are special beneficiaries who received a donation or testamentary gift from the inheritee, in order to treat the property as the amount of inheritance inheritance for the sake of equity among them, and to determine whether there is a special beneficiary who received a gift or testamentary gift from the inheritee as the portion of inheritance for the purpose of calculating the aggregate inheritance for 15 years prior to the commencement of inheritance. It is also possible to exclude the remaining property from inheritance for 15 years prior to the commencement of inheritance.

It is reasonable to include the basic property for calculating the legal reserve without exception. To this end, regardless of how much assets have been donated to a third party within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance, since all the property donated or bequeathed by an ancestor to a third party within one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance results in the return of the legal reserve, it is unreasonable to limit the freedom of will excessively. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

(B) In full view of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 8-1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, 3-1, 3-2, and the overall purport of the arguments with respect to this case, the amount of the property which forms the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance is as follows.

(1) Active inherited property: 0 won.

② Property donated to the Defendant by the Deceased: 69,013,750 won (10,075mx 1/2 equity x 13,700 won officially announced in the year 2006 x 13,700 won (8,430m x 1/2 equity x 13,000 won announced in the year 206 x 13,000 won officially announced in the year 206 x 100,000 won) converted into the value as at the time of commencement of inheritance x 102,093,718 won (the aggregate amount of KRW 10,000,000, KRW 100,0000, KRW 300, KRW 0000, KRW 100, KRW 6000, KRW 3000, KRW 8,0000; hereinafter the same shall apply) converted into the value as at the commencement of inheritance.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s 600,000,000 won, which the Deceased donated to the Plaintiff, was converted to the value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance ( = 600,00,000,000 won x April 8, 102 x 58, 102 x 100,000 won, the Plaintiff asserted that the Deceased disposed of part of the inherited property of A and divided property to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the fact that the payment of the said money was made at the time when about 10 years elapsed from June 27, 1982, when about 10 years passed since A died, it is difficult to view it as the division of inherited property).

0 The plaintiff alleged on July 11, 2003 and on July 21, 2001, that 200,000,000 won donated to the non-party 4 should be included in the underlying property of calculating legal reserve of inheritance. However, even in the plaintiff's assertion, it is not included in the underlying property of calculating legal reserve of inheritance since it is a donation before the commencement of inheritance one year.

total amount: 1,423, 941, 005 won ( = 225, 902, 468 won + 153, 140, 578 won + 1,04, 897, 959 won) Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance (B): 1/2 (legal reserve of inheritance x 1/2) Plaintiff’s special profit (C): 1,04, 897, 959 won (5) Plaintiff’s net inheritance amount (D): 0 won (6).

According to the above data, if the plaintiff's shortage in legal reserve of inheritance is calculated, the amount of drinking water ( – KRW 332, 927, 456 = 1,423, 941, 005 won x 1/2 (B) - KRW 1,04, 897, 959 (C) , and the defendant does not have legal reserve of inheritance to be returned to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Oh Byung-hee

Judges Lee Jae-hoon

The consumer price index (hereinafter “consumer price index”) on February 2, 2000 and around 58 August 1002, 1000: (a) the consumer price index (hereinafter “consumer price index”) on August 4, 1006 on July 4, 102