1. At the request of a change in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall be either 1. of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts are recognized, either there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was registered for transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on July 1, 1981, but the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant on October 6, 2003 as the receipt of the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch on October 6, 2003.

B. On August 5, 2014, the deceased’s father D (hereinafter “the deceased”) died and jointly succeeded by wife E (3/17 shares in inheritance), children F, Plaintiff, G, H, I, J, Defendant (2/17 shares in inheritance), and the deceased did not have any particular property other than each of the instant real property.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion title trust of each of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the Plaintiff, and donated it to one of the inheritors, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff as a legal reserve of inheritance shares of 1/17, 2/17, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares of each of the instant real estate.

B. The judgment 1) First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased alone held a title trust on the part of the deceased, and that his wife donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendant. However, the Defendant also purchased the instant real estate in KRW 9 million, while the deceased and E were the persons who donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the deceased and E purchased each of the instant real estate in KRW 6.5 million for 4 years, E lent KRW 6.5 million, and paid the price to the deceased and E as KRW 2.5 million. As the payment was made, E’s share is 31/36 (13/18/18/36) and the remaining 5/36 was the deceased’s share, it is insufficient to acknowledge it solely with the statement in the evidence under subparagraph 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s share is 1/222).