1. Of the part against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant C, which exceeds the following order to perform:

1. The grounds for this part of the underlying facts are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court regards “ October 25, 2015” as “ October 25, 2012.” under Articles 12 through 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ October 25, 2012.” Therefore, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The plaintiffs' right to claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance in 1) when there is a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance due to the donation in this case among the heirs of the deceased, the plaintiffs can claim the return of their properties to the extent of the shortage. 2) The shortage in the calculation method of the legal reserve of inheritance = [A] 】 the special benefit amount (C) of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance 】 - The net benefit amount of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance ? A = the amount of positive inherited property ＋ the amount of inheritance ? the spouse of the deceased, and lineal descendants of the deceased / 1/23 = the increased amount of inheritance of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance ＋ the amount of property - the amount of inheritance share - the amount of inheritance share - the calculation method of the following calculation methods are as follows.

3) As seen earlier, there are no active inherited property and inheritance liability at the time of the death of the deceased with positive inherited property and inheritance liability based on the basic property (A) in calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the deceased borrowed KRW 50,00,000 from the Defendants in order to donate money to the Plaintiffs, etc. around October 2003, it constitutes an inheritance obligation. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants borrowed KRW 50,00,00 from the Defendants solely on the basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 6, 9, 12, and 19 and the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to the head of Pyeongtaek Agricultural Cooperative at the court of first instance, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.