The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims on real estate in attached Form 1, and partly accepted the plaintiff B's claim for return of unjust enrichment on real estate in attached Form 2.

In this regard, the plaintiffs filed an appeal on the main and ancillary claims regarding the real estate stated in attached Form 1, and withdraw an appeal on the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was the main claim, and claim the part of the claim for the return of the reserve of inheritance as the return of the value for which the preliminary claim was filed.

As stated in the paragraph, the claim was modified to the primary claim, expanded the claim, and added the claim for the return of the original claim to the preliminary claim.

On the other hand, the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the part against the Defendant out of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff B.

Therefore, the subject of this Court's adjudication is the part of the plaintiffs' claim of forced inheritance and the part of the plaintiff B's claim of unjust enrichment.

2. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the 3rd written judgment of the first instance court “8” is dismissed as “9”; and (b) the 16th written “witness” is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiffs' claim for restitution of forced inheritance

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion infringed on the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance, who are co-inheritors by receiving the land of this case from E.

Accordingly, it is around.