소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried or added;
(a) by adding “I” to “C” and “I” following the first instance judgment of the first instance;
(b) by adding “H” to “D” following the first instance judgment of the first instance.
C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the plaintiffs' assertions from 3rd to 6th.
In addition, the short-term extinctive prescription of the right to claim the return of the forced portion was known to the fact that the person entitled to the forced portion of inheritance commenced and that there was a gift or testamentary gift, and the real estate of this case is limited to part of the deceased E's inherited property, and the plaintiffs did not know about the size of the whole inherited property at the time of the deceased E's death, and the legacy of this case against the defendant infringed the plaintiffs' forced portion of inheritance. Since the plaintiffs knew that the gift of this case against the defendant was already paid in the course of the lawsuit for the claim for the return of the purchase price of this case with respect to the sale and purchase real estate of this case, it was known that the inheritance of this case against the defendant was infringed upon the plaintiffs' forced portion of inheritance, the extinctive prescription of the defendant's assertion that the extinctive prescription
D. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the defendant's argument from 3rd to 10th is as follows.
"The plaintiff was aware of the fact that the real estate of this case was bequeathed before the birth of the deceased E, and around October 24, 2012, the gift of this case was infringed upon the plaintiffs' forced inheritance.