유류분
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The main issue of the instant case is that the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of inheritance portion against the Defendants by asserting that they received inheritance from the network H with respect to the right to claim the return of the forced portion against the Defendants of H. The Defendants asserted that the right to claim the return of the forced portion against the Defendants of H had already been extinguished due to the completion of the short-term extinctive prescription prior to the death of H. As such, the key issue of the instant case is whether the right to claim the return of the forced portion against the Defendants
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs’ reference and Defendant F’s reference, Defendant F’s assistant, died on April 20, 2016.
B. As the deceased I’s property heir, H, the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff C, D, E, and Plaintiff A and B, the deceased’s children, who were the children of Defendant F, were the deceased’s wife, and the deceased’s children.
C. Defendant G is Defendant F’s wife.
The legal portion of inheritance of the deceased’s property by inheritance is 3/15 by H, the plaintiffs and J respectively by 2/15.
E. At the time of the I’s death, there was no active property or liability to I.
F. On October 24, 2011, I completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of gift made on October 19, 201, 201, (1) to Defendant F, each of the real estate listed in Annex I’s Schedule I’s Schedule 1 through 8, and (2) to Defendant G, each of the real estate listed in Annex I’s Schedule 1’s Schedule 1’s Schedule 9.
(g) On November 16, 201, I completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of a gift made on November 11, 2011 to K, which is the husband of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, on November 16, 201.
H. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs: (a) stated in this Court that “I was donated to the Defendants as above; (b) there was a shortage in the reserve of inheritance of KRW 61,426,076, respectively, to Plaintiff C, D, and E; and (c) stated in this Court that “I was due to the fact that the Defendants were donated to the Defendants, and thus, there was a shortage in the reserve of inheritance of KRW 108,038