1. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant’s share of 1/18 of the real estate listed in attached Tables 2 and 3 to the Plaintiffs.

1. The deceased on June 25, 2015 (hereinafter “the deceased”) died. The deceased’s heir is Firs, G, Plaintiff A (3 Women), H (Nam), Plaintiff B (C), Defendant (3), I (4), J (5), and Plaintiff C (4) as the deceased’s heir.

Before the death of the deceased, the deceased resided with the defendant, and the plaintiffs did not travel for a period of not more than two years.

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on July 6, 2015 with respect to paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as "real estate 1") among the attached list owned by the deceased on July 17, 2015 and the attached list 2 and paragraph (3) (hereinafter referred to as "second real estate") on July 6, 2015, respectively.

There is no small property at the time of the deceased’s death.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance by legacying each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant, the Defendant must return the legal reserve of inheritance (each of 1/18 shares) to the Plaintiffs.

B. According to the facts of recognition of the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance No. 1, the Plaintiffs, as co-inheritors of the deceased, may seek the return of the legal reserve of inheritance to the extent of the shortage when there is a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, as seen earlier.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs did not visit at all with the deceased at the time of the deceased’s survival, and that it was unaware of the deceased’s death, thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for forced inheritance of this case goes against the good faith principle. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the forced inheritance of this case to the heir to compromise the conflict between the principle of testator’s oil and the statutory inheritance system, the Plaintiffs’ forced inheritance only based on the above circumstances and the evidence submitted by the Defendant.