(b) Whether a person among co-inheritors has a duty to return the excess where the property donated or bequeathed from the inheritee exceeds the share of inheritance;

(c) A person liable to bear the costs of appeal arising between one of the necessary co-litigants and the other necessary co-litigants, where an appeal is dismissed as only one of the co-litigants files an appeal;

B. Even if the property donated by one of the co-inheritors exceeds his/her share of inheritance, the excess portion need not be returned unless it infringes on the legal reserve of inheritance of other co-inheritors.

(c) If an appeal is dismissed because only one of the necessary co-litigants has lodged an appeal, the costs of appeal arising between the other party and the other necessary co-litigants shall also be borne by the appellant.

2. The respondent's remaining appeal shall be dismissed;

3. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the appellant and the appellee in both the first and second instances shall be divided into two parts, and the remainder shall be borne by the appellant, and the cost of appeal incurred between the appellant and the appellee shall be borne by the appellee, respectively.

4. The indication of the real estate in the Schedule 6 to 9 attached hereto shall be corrected as shown in the Schedule 2.

2. The real estate listed in Schedule 1 Nos. 5 to 11 shall be put to an auction and the remaining money shall be distributed to the claimant 1 in proportion to 6/11 and 1/11, respectively, after deducting the costs of the auction from the proceeds thereof.

3. The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The claimant asserts that the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate from the non-party 2 and 3 who was the owner of the claim and donated the respondent 1 to the non-party 2 and 3, and that only the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the respondent 1 directly from the non-party 2 and the non-party 3. Thus, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2-2, No. 3 and No. 3-2 (written copy of each register of forest land), the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the respondent 1 on April 19, 1960 in the name of the non-party 2 and No. 3, the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate from the non-party 2 and 3, and the non-party 1 donated the above real estate to the respondent 1, the non-party 2 and the defendant's testimony at the court below and the result of the non-party 2 witness examination at the non-party 1 and the counter-party 1's reply No. 2 (3).1).

Therefore, the legal portion of the non-claim 1's heir's inheritance is 1/21, 6/21, 4/21, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, and 1/21 of the respondent's heir's share of non-claim 1's inheritance. If the value of the respondent's share of inheritance is calculated by including the property donated by the respondent from non-claim 1's inheritance in accordance with the provisions of Article 1008 of the Civil Act, the respondent's share of inheritance at the time of the commencement of inheritance is 22,094,057 (7,329,200 x 6/21), 29, 371 (7,329, 200 x 4/21) as it is difficult for the respondent to divide the above real estate's share of the above non-claim 1's share of inheritance and 1's share of the above non-claim 1's share of the above real estate as co-Appellant 1's share of inheritance.

The claimant asserts that the respondent 1 has an obligation to return to the claimant the portion exceeding the value of the above share of inheritance among the value of the property donated by the non-claim 1, but even if some of the co-inheritors exceeds the share of inheritance, the excess should not be returned unless it infringes on the legal reserve of inheritance of other co-inheritors (Article 1008 of the Civil Act, which provides that "if the inheritance property exceeds the share of inheritance, it is not required to return the excess amount," as the Civil Act was amended by Act No. 3051 of December 31, 197, which provides that "if the inheritance property exceeds the share of inheritance, it is not required to return the excess portion." However, if the legal reserve of inheritance of other co-inheritors is newly established and the inheritance of inheritance exceeds the share of inheritance of inheritance, it is necessary to recognize the return of the infringing portion, and if the inheritance property exceeds the share of inheritance of inheritance, it is not changed to require return of the excess portion without any condition, and there is no evidence that there is no ground for the claimant's assertion otherwise.

Therefore, the real estate listed in the attached list No. 5 through No. 11 shall be put at auction for the remaining money after deducting auction expenses from the proceeds thereof shall be distributed to 1/11 and to the remaining petitioners at the rate of 1/111, respectively. Among the claims of the claimant in this case, the part demanding division of inherited property among the claims of the claimant in this case shall be accepted as well as the part demanding payment of money to 1 of the rest of the respondent shall be dismissed without any reasons. Since the original judgment has accepted all the claims of the claimant with different conclusions, the part ordering payment of money to 1 of the original judgment shall be revoked as part of the appellant's appeal, and the rest of the appeal between the claimant and the respondent shall be dismissed without any reasons, and all of the costs of appeal shall be borne by 1 and 2 of the respondent, and the remaining part of the appeal shall not be appealed to 2 of the defendant's appeal as stated in the attached list No. 96 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the part concerning the division of inherited property, which shall be paid to 16 or more than 2 of the respondent's appeal.

Judges Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)