A. The network F (hereinafter “the network”) had the Plaintiffs, G, H, Defendant, and I (eight) as their children.

B. On October 24, 2012, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate to the Defendant on the ground of donation on October 23, 2012.

C. The Deceased died on June 7, 2016.

At that time, there was no other active and passive property at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Shortage in the method of calculating the shortage in the reserve of inheritance shall be calculated as follows:

Shortage in the legal reserve = [A] 】 The amount of special profit (C) at the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance - The amount of net inheritance (D) at the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance - The amount of testamentary gift at the legal reserve of inheritance - B = the amount of inheritance debts at the legal reserve of the inheritee 1/23 = the amount of property acquired by the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance - the amount of property acquired by the inheritance of the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance of the inheritee - the amount of inheritance debts.

B. The real estate of this case is a donation of KRW 271,744,00 (Evaluation 2 at the time of commencement of the inheritance) in the case of KRW 5 million (G, H, D, Defendant, and I), in the absence of any dispute over the property(A), Gap evidence No. 4, witness G’s testimony, and appraiser J’s appraisal result: KRW 271,744,000 (Evaluation 2 at the time of commencement of the inheritance): 5 million (one million won for each of them) [in relation thereto, the defendant shall be the defendant from the deceased, the plaintiff Eul shall be K and L (hereinafter “Mri land”).

B, Plaintiff B asserts that he received each gift of KRW 10 million, and Plaintiff C received KRW 5 million.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5-10, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the purport of the entire arguments is as follows: (i) the plaintiff Eul and Eul paid wages and retirement allowances received from the deceased at the request of the deceased in the past, and (ii) the plaintiff Eul was his spouse.