A. As to the share of 3/26 to Plaintiff A:

B. Plaintiffs B, C, D, and.

A. The deceased G had children as Defendant B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff E, their spouse.

The network G died on November 7, 2016, and the plaintiffs and the defendant jointly succeeded the network G.

B. The net G donated each real estate listed in the separate sheet on December 9, 2009 to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the main point of the plaintiffs' assertion G violated the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance by donating each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return the plaintiffs' share equivalent to the ratio of legal reserve of inheritance infringed upon by the plaintiffs among the above real estate.

B. The application of Article 1114 of the Civil Act is excluded in cases where there is a person, among co-inheritors, who received a living donation from the inheritee and received a special benefit from the inheritee, and such donation is included in the underlying property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance regardless of whether one year has passed prior to the commencement of inheritance, and whether both parties knew that damage would be inflicted (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da17885, Feb. 9, 196). Accordingly, each real property listed in the separate sheet should be included in the property that was donated before the deceased G to the Defendant, which is the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

In addition, insofar as there is no evidence to support the existence of the net G’s inherited property and inheritance liability at the time of the death of the network G, it shall be deemed that the net G’s inherited property and inheritance liability remain (the Defendant does not explicitly dispute this). The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiffs received compensation for losses paid from the network G as the land was expropriated into the road site, but there is no evidence to support this. Therefore, the Plaintiffs received donations from the network G or received them.