1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The deceased on August 7, 2016, and the deceased's spouse B, the plaintiff A, and the defendant inherited the deceased's property at the rate of 3:2:2.

The network D operated a restaurant in Gyeyang-gu E in Gyeyang-gu E, the F. F. 238 square meters and its ground buildings. As each of the above land and the above ground buildings is subject to the legal acquisition of land, etc. for public works, it entered into a compensation contract with the Republic of Korea on December 17, 2008 and received compensation of KRW 770,448,00, and entered into a contract on the sale of substitute land with the first real estate listed in the separate sheet on October 6, 2009 (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 8, 2009 with respect to the instant land.

The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 8, 2009 with respect to the instant land on the ground of donation on October 7, 2009, and received KRW 515,200,000 from the deceased’s compensation for losses paid, and as part of which, the Defendant newly constructed, on the ground of the instant land, the two real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership preservation on July 2, 2010.

On May 18, 2012, the deceased D and Plaintiff B filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Defendant to the effect that the compensation, etc. for losses paid to the Defendant was a loan (the Seocho District Court 2012Gahap31055 loan), and on November 9, 2012, mediation was concluded to the effect that “the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant had a debt of KRW 600 million to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff B (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and that the Defendant exempted the above loan obligations by paying KRW 1,80,000 per month until the time of death of the Plaintiff D and Plaintiff B.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant infringed the plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance, and the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of their legal reserve of inheritance.