유류분반환
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant added or removed a part of the judgment of first instance as stated in paragraph (2), and (b) the Defendant added a judgment as to the matters asserted in this court, such as paragraph (3). Therefore, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part concerning addition or height;
A. In the first instance judgment, the indication of real estate No. 4 in the table No. 2 in the table No. 4 in the table No. 5 in the first instance judgment "D before D," the donee "Plaintiff, Nonparty E, and F (each 1/3)" as "non-party F," respectively, and the donee No. 5 in the table No. 5 as "the plaintiff, non-party E, and F (each 1/3)."
B. On the two pages of the first instance judgment, “(based for recognition)” is added to “(based for recognition), without dispute, Party A 1-5, Party B 1 and Party 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.”
C. On the 2nd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above defendant added “the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances, which may be recognized in accordance with the above-mentioned facts, Gap’s entries and the purport of the entire pleadings,” and the 4nd page “in light of the circumstances, etc.,” respectively.
The following shall be added to the second two pages of the judgment of the first instance.
“Along with this, the Defendant asserts that “A donation was made from the perspective of compensation for the said gift, since G particularly saw Defendant C, who was a son, and Defendant C also took care of G, such as registering the insured of his workplace medical insurance. As such, the said gift does not constitute a gift with knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff.
However, “n't know that it would be prejudicial to others” is merely a perception of infringing others’ legal reserve of inheritance, and it does not mean that Defendant C should have moral intent in doing such act, and otherwise, Defendant C is the insured of his workplace medical insurance.