1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Whether an appeal to complete completion is lawful or the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on March 9, 2018 after delivering a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, to the Defendant by the court of first instance. On March 22, 2018, the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. Thereafter, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance court rendered a judgment on June 7, 2018, and then became aware of the fact that the Defendant subsequently filed an appeal on June 12, 2018, which is not more than two weeks thereafter, was remarkably known to the court or recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal is due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant. Accordingly, the appeal following subsequent completion of the instant case filed by the Defendant within two weeks from the time the first instance judgment became final and conclusive by public notice is lawful.

2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion and the Defendant’s decedent I (hereinafter “the deceased”) donated KRW 97,558,593 of the amount that terminated three time deposits on April 16, 2010 to the Defendant prior to his death (in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4-1 and evidence Nos. 14-2, 4, and 5 of the evidence No. 14-5, the sum of the amount that terminated three time deposits was KRW 97,58,593 (=38,189,375 won, KRW 29,696,684 won, KRW 29,672,534 won, and KRW 97,598,593 recorded in the warden’s statement was deemed to have been erroneous as a clerical error due to calculation, and KRW 60,600,000,000,000 for June 3, 2010.

Considering each of the above donations, the defendant's specific shares of inheritance pursuant to Article 1008 of the Civil Code is zero, and the plaintiff A is 2/13, the plaintiff B, C, D, and E, respectively, and the plaintiff F is 6/65, and the plaintiff G is 4/65.

The shortage in statutory reserve of inheritance calculated by deducting the amount of statutory reserve of inheritance calculated by reflecting the above donations from the net inheritance amount corresponding to such specific shares of inheritance is the same as the amount claimed in each claim.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the difference in each of the above legal reserve of inheritance to the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

(a) basic facts;