소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendant on the ground of the instant claim is seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the return of ownership ownership on the portion of 1/8 of the instant real estate.
In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant are co-inheritors of the deceased network D's deceased on February 4, 2009 (for the deceased D's co-inheritors, there are four persons such as E and F in addition to the plaintiff and the defendant), and the network D has donated the real estate of this case to the defendant on February 1, 2005 and transferred its ownership, and this is in violation of the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance, so the plaintiff's transfer of 1/8 shares equivalent to the legal reserve of inheritance to the plaintiff.
However, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription against the Plaintiff’s above claim was revealed in light of the health stand, and evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff appears to have known that D’s donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant at the time of the Plaintiff’s death and that it should be returned on the ground of infringement of legal reserve of inheritance. Meanwhile, from February 4, 2009 when the Plaintiff died, Article 1117 of the Civil Act was filed on December 4, 2015, much more than one year than that prescribed by the extinctive prescription period, since the fact that Article 1117 of the Civil Act was filed on December 4, 2015, it is apparent in the record that the Defendant
Therefore, the right to claim the forced inheritance, which is the cause of the plaintiff's claim, has already expired by prescription.
Therefore, under the premise that there is still a existence, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for 1/8 shares out of the instant real estate is without merit without further examining the remaining issues, such as the amount of infringement of legal reserve of inheritance.
In this regard, the Plaintiff demanded on February 4, 2009 that the Plaintiff returned the legal reserve of inheritance to the Defendant on July 6, 2009 at the time of the death of the said D, and on July 6, 2009, the Plaintiff’s mother’s first proposal of the deceased G, and on February 4, 2010, the first proposal of the network D, and each subsequent proposal of the network D and G.