1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts - on June 23, 1999, the network E donated each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates”) to the Defendant.

- As the deceased died on January 25, 2006, six consciousnesss including the plaintiffs and the defendant were jointly inherited, and there was no particular property at the time of the deceased’s death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that at the time that the deceased donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the deceased and the defendant knew that they would inflict damages on the Plaintiff, who was the person having the right

On the other hand, since the plaintiffs' legal share of inheritance is 1/6 each, the legal share of inheritance is 1/12 each.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to transfer 1/12 shares of each real estate of this case to the plaintiffs as the return of legal reserve of inheritance.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) was aware of the fact that the Deceased donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendant before the Deceased died.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of each of the legal reserve against the defendant was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

(2) The right to claim the recovery of the legal reserve of inheritance is extinguished by prescription unless the person with the right to the legal reserve of inheritance does not know of the gift or testamentary gift that is to be returned at the commencement of inheritance within one year.

(Article 117 of the Civil Act) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 7 and witness testimony of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s Cho Jong-soo’s testimony on August 2013, 2013, the small-term fact that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s Cho Jong-soo sought Plaintiff C, and that “the Defendant would not pay for the purchase of land from the Defendant,” and that the Plaintiffs read the registry of each of the instant real estate at that time, and each of the facts are acknowledged. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs were to die, as alleged by the Defendant, the Deceased prior to the death of the Deceased.