2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. Additional determination

A. Although it is difficult to believe some of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 17 (including paper numbers) additionally discovered at the trial at the expiration of the extinctive prescription, or each of the above evidence is presented, it is insufficient to conclude the judgment following the fact-finding of the first instance court, including that the deceased's property was donated or bequeathed to the defendant, etc., and that their legal reserve was infringed and that their legal reserve was known that the extinctive prescription of the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of legal reserve has expired, or that the plaintiffs' assertion related to this part is not recognized, at the latest around March 6, 2007, or around April 5, 2007, the date of registration of ownership transfer based on the legacy of this case.

B. In determining whether to suspend the statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs stated to the effect that, within one year from March 6, 2007, the deceased died, G and the Defendant, her mother, was divided into the deceased’s property, and the Defendant, her mother, and her mother, was changed to the effect that it was continuously demanded to the same effect on the date of the deceased’s birth, mother’s birth, and the deceased’s death, and thus, the statute

The right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance can be exercised by means of a declaration of intention to the other party in court or outside court. However, even in this case, the declaration of intention is to designate the testamentary gift or gift which has been infringed and indicate the intention to claim the return. The Supreme Court Decision 93Da11715 delivered on June 30, 1995.