It is difficult to deem that the Deceased had no mental capacity at the time of donation to the Defendants.

Even when the staff of the certified judicial scrivener office visited the sick room, the deceased expressed his intention of donation by extinguishing the body, and the deceased prepared a donation contract in order to donate the instant real estate to the Defendants, and delegated the affairs of application for registration to the certified judicial scrivener. Thus, the registration of establishment of a neighboring establishment in the name of the Defendant cannot be deemed null

2015 Doz. 104507 Registration for cancellation of ownership

Kim AA et al.

ParkB and five others

October 14, 2016

November 25, 2016

1. For the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant):

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay 91,063,238 won and each of the said amounts at an annual rate of 5% from March 16, 2016 to November 25, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays 132,610,812 won each and 15% interest per annum from September 22, 2015 to November 25, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s primary main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ParkB and ParkCC and the remainder of the main claim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), each claim against the Defendant AD, KimD, Korea, and EE Bank by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and ParkB and ParkCC, respectively.

3. Of litigation costs;

A. The portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ParkB is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ParkB by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

B. The portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by aggregating the principal claim and the counterclaim, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

C. The portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant Amateur, KimD, Korea, and EE Bank shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

Main Office

Section 4.0 (State Claim)

For the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”),

1. Of the real estate listed in Appendix 1, 2,

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) ParkB, and ParkCC, with respect to each of the shares of 1/2 shares, the transfer of ownership is registered as the Seoul Central District Court’s registry No. 217149, Sept. 29, 2014;

B. With respect to the shares of 1/2, Defendant AD shall register the transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 31, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court Registry No. 83862, Mar. 31, 2015;

C. As to the 1/2 shares, Defendant KimD’s transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 31, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court registry No. 83863, as to the 1/2 shares;

D. Defendant EE Bank: (a) the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed on March 31, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 83864;

execution of each procedure for cancellation registration;

2. Of the real estate listed in Appendix 3:

(a) Defendant ParkB and ParkCC: (a) with respect to each of the 1/2 shares, the registration of the Seoul Western District Court and the transfer of ownership completed under No. 42918 of the receipt of September 29, 2014;

B. Defendant Republic of Korea: (a) the registration of Seoul Western District Court and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on June 24, 2015 by the Seoul Western District Court No. 43023;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

(Preliminary Claim)

Defendant ParkB and ParkCC shall pay each of the plaintiffs 183,385,346 won with 20% interest per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim

The Plaintiffs pay to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC 56,574,180 won each and the interest rate of 15% per annum from July 19, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2014, the deceased FF (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are the deceased’s children. After establishing a de facto marital relationship with KimG, the deceased gave birth to each of the Plaintiffs around 1966 and around 1968, but her contact with the Plaintiffs was discontinued after leaving their offices around 1970.

B. The Deceased, from around 1980, entered into a de facto marital relationship with the deceased ParkB and ParkCC, and gave birth to each of the Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, and completed the report of birth with the children of the deceased’s clothes II, who are the legal wife of the deceased Park H. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant ParkB and ParkCC was sentenced by the Seoul Family Court to the effect that there was no parental relation between the Defendant ParkB, ParkCC, and the deceased and the deceased II, and that there was no parental relation between the deceased and the deceased (No. 2014da45143).

C. On September 29, 2014, Defendant ParkB and ParkCC completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the grounds of donation on August 20, 2014, each of the 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Cheongdam-dong real estate in case of the real estate listed in Nos. 1 and 2, and “O-dong real estate in case of the third real estate; hereinafter referred to as “each of the above real estate”).

D. Defendant ADD and KimD shall purchase 1/2 shares from Defendant ParkB and ParkCC on March 17, 2015 and complete each registration of ownership transfer on March 31, 2015.

E. On March 31, 2015, Defendant EE Bank completed the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on Cheongdodong real estate with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.32 billion, the debtor KimD, and the debtor Kim D, and the defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on Odo real estate with the maximum debt amount of KRW 187,294,347, Jun. 24, 2015, and the debtor ParkB.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the primary main claim against Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, and as to the claim against Defendant AD, KimD, Korea, and EE Bank

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, taking advantage of the deceased’s lack of mental capacity from July 18, 2014, forged the gift contract on each of the instant real estate and the power transfer registration necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate for this reason.

In addition, since the registration of each of the instant real estates was completed after the deceased died, and thus the agreement on real rights was not reached between the deceased and the Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, each of the above registrations shall be null and void, and null and void, and each of the registrations in the name of the Defendant AD, KimD, EE Bank, and the Republic of Korea shall be cancelled as a registration invalidation.

B. Determination

According to the overall purport of this case, the deceased's brain pressure was continuously increased even in medical treatment around August 20, 2014, and the results of the investigation into the fact that the deceased was brain of the deceased on July 15, 2014, and that at around July 18, 2014, the deceased showed me and urines, such as intending to distinguish the hospital from the house at night, and to deduct ices from the house, and that at around August 20, 2014, there was symptoms, such as that she did not go behind, and that there was no son’s brain pressure increased even in medical treatment. However, even if there was no remaining life, it was recognized that the application for transfer registration was made on August 21, 2014 on the gift of this case 2014, and that the application for transfer registration was made on August 21, 2014 to reduce brain pressure.

However, in full view of the following circumstances as a result of the fact-finding on the evidence Nos. 5, Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 30 of the Evidence Nos. 14, 16, and 30 of the Evidence Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 30 of the Department of Research, and the fact-finding on the Symna’s Sym School Symnas Hospital’s Symnasium’s testimony and arguments, it is difficult to view that the Deceased was

1) Even if the deceased’s general situation was not good on or around August 20, 2014, it cannot be clearly known that much kind of expression of opinion was made, as well as that there was a son in a lower condition around July 18, 2014, and on or around August 6, 2014, the communication was clearly made more clear, and the agreement was improved, it cannot be ruled out that each of the instant real estate was donated to Defendant ParkBB and ParkCC.

2) In addition, on August 20, 2014, the JJ, as an employee of a certified judicial scrivener office, expressed the intention of donation by duplicating sculous donation even when the deceased visited the sick room in order to verify the deceased’s intent of donation.

3) On August 20, 2014, the Deceased prepared a donation contract to donate each of the instant real estate to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, and delegated the affairs of filing an application for registration of each of the instant real estate to Seocho, a certified judicial scrivener, and obtained the approval seal from the head of Gangnam-gu on August 21, 2014.

4) On March 10, 2011, the Deceased prepared a testamentary document with Defendant ParkB and ParkCC as a testamentary donee with respect to the Cheongdodong real estate on March 10, 201.

Therefore, each registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the name of the Defendants based on the donation made by the Deceased on August 20, 2014 and registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage cannot be deemed null and void. This part of the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants is without merit.

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

If the registration of ownership transfer completed by Defendant ParkB and ParkCC on each of the instant real property is valid, the Plaintiffs sought the return of the infringed legal reserve of inheritance against Defendant ParkB and ParkCC as stated in the conjunctive claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance was infringed due to the deceased’s donation to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC.

B. Violation of the principle of trust and good faith or defense of abuse of rights

Accordingly, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim for the return of forced inheritance of this case violates the principle of good faith or constitutes abuse of rights, considering that the O-dong real estate and Cheong-dong real estate are property derived from the deceased Park H, unrelated to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs have lived with each other until the deceased who is biological mother died, and that there was no contribution to the formation and maintenance of inherited property at all.

If the exercise of the right can be seen as an abuse of the right, a subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain or damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and objectively, the exercise of the right should be viewed as going against the social order. The legislative purpose of the system to return the legal reserve of inheritance is to guarantee the freedom of an inheritor's disposal of property and the freedom of will, but to protect the survivors' right to life from an inheritor's disposal of property, to contribute to the formation of the inherited property, to guarantee the expectation of inherited property, and to impose sanctions on the heir by destroying a ties with the inheritee, in light of the fact that Article 104 of the Civil Act explicitly prescribes the grounds for the disqualification of inheritance, it should be done carefully to restrict the exercise of the right to return the legal reserve of inheritance based on the general principles such as the principle of good faith or the principle

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the entry of the evidence No. 1 by O-dong real estate and Cheongdong real estate was property derived from the deceased Park H, which is irrelevant to the plaintiffs. In addition, the circumstances alleged by the defendants alone are insufficient to deem that the claim for the return of the forced portion of this case constitutes the exercise of rights in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. Accordingly, this part of the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

(c) Occurrence of claims for return of legal reserve of inheritance

1) Method of calculating shortage in legal reserve of inheritance

The plaintiffs, as co-inheritors of the deceased, may claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance against the defendant ParkB and ParkCC to the extent of the shortage when there is a shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance due to the donation to the defendant ParkB and ParkCC by the deceased. The method of calculating the shortage in legal reserve of inheritance is as follows.

Shortage in legal reserve of inheritance = [The amount of property (A) based on which legal reserve of inheritance is calculated 】 The person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance concerned

Ratio of Legal Reserve of Inheritance (B) - Special proceeds (C) of those persons entitled to legal reserve of inheritance -

The net amount of inheritance (D) of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance;

A = Amount of active inherited property £« Amount of donations ? Amount of inherited debts

B = For lineal descendants of an inheritee, one-half of the inheritance stipulated by law.

C = Amount of increase in the number of persons entitled to legal reserve of inheritance ＋ amount of increase in quantity received.

D = The amount of property acquired by inheritance to the person having the right to legal reserve of inheritance £­ The share of inheritance debts.

2) The amount of property (A) that forms the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance

A) Active inherited property of the Deceased

Defendant ParkB and ParkCC stated that the deposit claim 285,264 won of the deceased’s deposit claim (65,416 won + 136,619 won + 136,196 won + 25,040 won + 52,484 won + 4,509 won + 16,028,766 won underreporting at the time of investigation into the tax office with respect to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC (=16,028,766 won + 285,264 won) should be included in the amount of active inherited property of the deceased.

B) Property donated by the Deceased to the Defendants

(1) Prone real estate;

(A) On August 20, 2014, the market price of the Cheongdong Real Estate donated by the Deceased to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC on August 20, 2014, which was KRW 3.2 billion at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, is no dispute between the parties.

However, in cases where an inheritor takes over an obligation of the inheritee as consideration for a gift or gift of the mortgaged real estate established by the inheritee, only the remainder after deducting the secured debt amount or the debt acquisition amount of the inheritee from the value of the said real estate shall be considered as the gift value. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul No. 10, 19, and 33, as to the above real estate, at the time when Defendant ParkB and ParkCC takes over the Cheong-dong real estate as a gift, three measures were established under the name of LLB Bank (hereinafter “LB”) 360 million won for the deceased, 472 million won for the maximum debt amount, 48, 12,000 won for the above real estate, 360 million won for the above real estate, 3686 billion won for each of the above real estate, 360 million won for the purpose of securing the obligation of the deceased's LBB and 33300 million won for each of the above real estate, 3685 billion won for the above real estate.

(B) Defendant ParkB and ParkCC asserted that the aforementioned Cheong-B and ParkCC’s obligation to lend loans secured by the said Cheong-dong real property is a debt to be fully deducted from the interest to March 31, 2015, which had been repaid by Defendant ParkB and ParkCC. However, as long as Defendant ParkB and ParkCC donated the said Cheong-dong real property, this part of this claim by Defendant ParkB and ParkCC is merely a cost to be borne by themselves, and therefore, this part of this claim is without merit.

(2) OO-owned real estate

The plaintiffs asserted that since the O's real estate was incorporated into the O's Zone Four Housing Redevelopment and Development Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "O's redevelopment partnership") around 2008, the defendant ParkB and ParkCC purchased 1 billion won at the market price from the O's redevelopment partnership in Seoul OO-dong 380,000 OO-dong 1104 and 101 billion won at the redevelopment area, the compensation amount of 716,220,917 won at the time of the commencement of inheritance should be included in the total market price of 2,216,20,917 won at the time of the commencement of inheritance.

Although there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the market price at the time of inheritance since the incorporation into the O redevelopment association, there is no dispute. According to the overall arguments and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 20, 21, and 33, the value of O's real estate has been assessed as KRW 1,926,390,50 from the above association as the O's real estate was incorporated into the O's real estate was assessed as KRW 1,926,390,50, which was later estimated to sell from the above association around April 30, 2015; Defendant ParkB, ParkCC, which was estimated to sell from the above association; KRW 1,210,747,50; and KRW 1,926,968,417 (previous proportion x 3,000) as at the time of sale of the O's real estate; the value of the above real estate should be assessed as KRW 1,9716,2967,2967,27,294,27,400.

On the other hand, according to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, a collateral security was established in the name of OO redevelopment association with respect to O-owned real estate at the time of donation of O-owned real estate, the deceased agreed on 1.3 billion won interest rate of 1.3 billion won per annum from OO redevelopment association on April 3, 2008, and borrowed a total of 1.6 billion won with interest rate of 1.6 billion won per annum from O-owned real estate. Defendant ParkB and GamCC accepted the above debt and paid the total amount of 1,741,296,438 won to O-owned real estate and revoked the registration of establishment of a collateral security under the name of O-owned real estate. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above 1,741,296,438 won should be deducted from the value of O-owned real estate and the market value of O-owned real estate at the time of inheritance is 1,57,197,1964.7

(3) KRW 160,180,000, which Defendant ParkB and ParkCC withdrawn from the deceased’s account from October 8, 2014

(A) Article 1008 of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where there is a person among co-inheritors who received a donation or testamentary gift of property from the inheritee among those who received such donation or testamentary gift, if the gift does not reach his/her own share of inheritance, the portion in excess thereof shall be included in the share of inherited property within the extent of such shortage. This purport is to treat the gift property as the advance payment of the share of inheritance in order to ensure the fairness among co-inheritors in cases where there is a special beneficiary who received a donation or testamentary gift from the inheritee among co-inheritors, and to consider it in calculating the specific share of inheritance for the sake of equity among the co-inheritors. Thus, what kind of donation constitutes special benefit shall be determined by taking into account the property of the inheritee, income, living standard, home situation, etc. of the inheritee and by taking into account the equity among the co-inheritors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da64635, Jul. 28, 2011).

(B) The Plaintiffs asserted that, from February 25, 2013 to October 8, 2014, the remainder of KRW 161,80 million, excluding KRW 243,088,180,00,000, which was paid by Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, from the deceased’s LL Bank account (00-00-000, hereinafter referred to as “000”), should be included in the amount of property, which was the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

First, among the above KRW 161.8 million, the KRW 40 million remitted to Defendant ParkB on September 17, 2014, and KRW 50 million remitted to Defendant ParkCC on or around September 17, 2014, shall not be disputed that Defendant ParkB and ParkCC was donated to the deceased, and the above KRW 90 million shall be included in the property that forms the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

Furthermore, it is considered whether Defendant ParkB and ParkCC have received a donation to the remainder of KRW 78 million.

As of September 28, 2014, when the deceased died, KRW 7,103,312 was taken over as collateral obligation of the right to collateral security established by the Defendant ParkB and ParkCC as of September 28, 2014. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that each amount deposited from the 88807 account opened from February 20, 2013 to be the amount donated to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, except for the above KRW 90,000,000,000,000, which was used by the deceased from February 20, 2013 to the death of Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Ultimately, among the above KRW 160,000,000, the amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, which is the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, should be included in the property amount that is the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance. The plaintiffs' assertion is with merit

(4) The monthly rent of 65,808,000, which Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received from the lessee of the Cheongmo real estate

The Plaintiffs asserts that the monthly rent of KRW 65,808,00 that Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received for eight months from July 15, 2014 to March 31, 2015 (i.e., KRW 8,226,000 x 8 months) should also be calculated as donation amount.

The plaintiffs are not sufficient to recognize the monthly rent of 65,808,00 won, which Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received from July 15, 2014, with each of the statements in Eul's 65,808,00 won, and Eul's 4 through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the statements in Eul's 18-1 and 2, it is recognized that the monthly rent of Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received from Cheong-dong real estate lessees is 46,827,00 won. Furthermore, this is merely a result of acquiring the right to receive negligence under Article 201 (1) of the Civil Act according to the donation of Cheong-dong real estate, and it cannot be viewed that this constitutes a special profit separate from Cheong-dong real estate. Therefore, the above assertion is groundless.

(5) Determination of KRW 40,116,460 of life insurance money

The Plaintiffs asserts that Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received 40,116,460 won of the deceased’s life insurance money.

In a life insurance contract where a policyholder concludes a policyholder’s inheritor as a beneficiary of the insured’s death, the inheritor of the insured may claim the insurer payment of insurance proceeds as a beneficiary of the insured’s death, and this right is not an inherited property as a matter of course derived from the validity of the insurance contract (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da65755 Decided December 24, 2001).

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 26-1 to No. 26-3, insofar as it is recognized that the deceased concluded each insurance contract with Defendant ParkB as an insurance beneficiary, the insurance money that Defendant ParkB received as an insurance beneficiary does not constitute inherited property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' above assertion against this is rejected.

C)the amount of inherited debts;

ParkBB and ParkCC asserts that the deceased’s loan obligation of KRW 377,665,750 should also be included in the inheritance obligation.

The following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the Defendants were unable to submit objective financial transaction details, etc. of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the deceased’s 200,000,000 won, ② The Defendants did not provide the deceased with any security while lending a large amount of money to KRW 200,000,00,000, and did not affix signature and seal to the monetary loan certificate or performance note (No. 13-1), and the creditors did not receive any authentication regarding the above loan certificate, and it is difficult to accept in light of the empirical rule that the creditors did not take any measure as above. ③ The above loan certificate provides that the interest on the principal shall be paid at 12% per annum as at the time of the above loan transaction, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ 200,000,000,000,000,000 won,00 won,0000.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the amount of property(A) that serves as the basis for calculating the legal reserve at the time of the deceased’s death is KRW 2,108,300,672 (= KRW 1,816,314,663 + KRW 185,671,979 + + KRW 90 million + KRW 16,314,030).

3) Ratio (B) and amount of legal reserve of inheritance (A xB)

The ratio of each legal reserve of the Plaintiffs, Defendant ParkB, and ParkCC is 1/8 (i.e., statutory inheritance ratio 1/4 x 1/2). The statutory reserve of inheritance amount is 263,537,584 (i.e., 2,108, 300, 672 won/8, and less than KRW 2,108, 672 won/8, the same applies hereinafter).

4) The plaintiffs' special proceeds (C): there is no special benefit amount.

5) The plaintiffs' net amount of inheritance (D)

The amount of positive inherited property is KRW 16,314,030 as seen earlier. However, there is no dispute that there is no net inheritance amount of the plaintiffs, defendant ParkB, and ParkCC.

6) Sub-determination

Therefore, the difference in the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance is 263,537,584 won, as in the legal reserve of inheritance.

D. Legal reserve of inheritance to be returned by Defendant ParkB and ParkCC

1) Relevant legal principles

When there are several co-inheritors who received a gift or testamentary gift in return for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance, the person with the right to the legal reserve of inheritance may claim the return of the value of the gift or testamentary gift in proportion to the value exceeding his own own legal reserve of inheritance.

2) Special proceeds of the Defendants

A) Special proceeds of Defendant BB

(1) the amount equivalent to 1/2 shares in each of the Cheongdo-dong and O-dong real estate;

1,00, 993, 321 won (=2,01,986,642 won) = 1,816,314,63 won + 185,671,979 won), 2, and 3,00 won below (hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Amount of KRW 40 million donated on September 17, 2014

(c) Total amount: 1,040,993,321 won;

B) Special proceeds of Defendant ParkCC

(1) the amount equivalent to one half of each of the two shares of Cheongdodong and OOdong real estate:

1,00,93,321 won (=2,01,986,642 won)/2 (=1,816,314,63 won +185,671,979 won)/2

(2) Amount of KRW 50 million donated on September 17, 2014

(c) Total amount: 1,050,993,321 won;

3) Excess amount of legal reserve of the Defendants

In this case, since Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received all donations of Cheongdam's real estate, OO-owned real estate and financial assets, each excess amount of legal reserve of inheritance is as follows.

A) Defendant BB: 77,455,737 won (=the increased amount of KRW 1,040,993,321 - legal reserve of inheritance KRW 263,537,584)

B) Defendant ParkCC: 787,455,737 won (i.e., increased amount of KRW 1,050,993,321 - Legal reserve of inheritance KRW 263,537,584)

4) Return rate of legal reserve of inheritance by the defendant

A) Defendant BB: 77,455,737 won/1,564,91,474 won (=77,455,737 won + 787,455,737 won)

B) Defendant ParkCC: 787,455,737 won/1,564,91,474 won (=787,093,651 won + 797,093,651 won)

5) Return of legal reserve of inheritance by the defendant

A) Defendant BB: 130,926,771 won each (=263,537,584 won x 77,45,737 won/1,564,91,474 won)

B) Defendant ParkCC: 132,610,812 won (=263,537,584 won) ¡¿ 787,45,737 won/1,564,91,474 won)

6) Method of returning legal reserve of inheritance

A) Defendant ParkB and ParkCC asserted that legal reserve of inheritance should be returned in the form of return of original properties that transfer the shares of O-dong real estate in the form of an O-dong apartment 107 Dong 1104 and a commercial building 101 Dong 101.

Korean Civil Act recognizes the system of legal reserve of inheritance and provides for the method of return of legal reserve of inheritance in accordance with Articles 1112 through 1118. However, in light of the provision that "the person liable to return the property may claim the return of the property to the extent that it falls short of the amount provided for in Article 1115(1), he/she shall normally return the property subject to gift or testamentary gift, and if it is impossible to return the original property, he/she shall return the amount equivalent to the value thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51887, Jun. 23, 2005).

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① O-dong real estate was incorporated into the redevelopment site of the O-O redevelopment association; ② the building on the ground of the O-dong real estate was completed on May 29, 2009; ② Defendant ParkBB and ParkCC received compensation corresponding to the difference between the estimated sales of the O-dong real estate and the estimated sales price; ③ the above O-dong apartment 107 Dong 1104 and 101 Dong Dong 101 are not yet established. In full view of the following circumstances, it is impossible to return the original goods of the O-dong real estate, and the Cheong-dong real estate was transferred to Defendant AD and KimD, and thus it is impossible to return the original goods. Therefore, it is inevitable to refund the amount equivalent to the value thereof.

B) Meanwhile, in calculating the amount of statutory reserve, the market price of the property donated to a person liable to return shall be calculated at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and in cases where the return of the original property is impossible due to impossibility of return of the original property, the value shall be calculated at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings at the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51887, supra). According to the legal principles as seen earlier, the amount calculated by multiplying the value of each of the Defendants’ property at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings at the hearing at the above time of the commencement of each of the Defendants’ respective gift assets by the ratio of each of the above plaintiffs’ respective statutory reserve amounts to the value at the time of the commencement of the pleadings at the time of the argument at issue at the time of the commencement of the pleadings at the time of the plaintiff’s each of the above OO real property at the time of the commencement of the pleadings at the time of the above time of the commencement of the pleading at the time of the above time of the pleading at the above time of this case.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant ParkB is obligated to pay damages for delay from September 22, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the Plaintiffs, and Defendant ParkB is obligated to pay damages for delay from August 22, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

4. Determination as to Defendant ParkB and ParkCC’s offset defense and counterclaim claim against the principal lawsuit

A. Defendant ParkB and ParkCC’s assertion

Defendant ParkB and ParkCC received total inheritance tax amounting to KRW 452,60,01,468 from co-inheritors and paid KRW 340,102,060 up to now, and the remaining KRW 145,173,123 was permitted by annual installments. Therefore, the Defendants terminated their joint and several tax liability amounting to KRW 56,575,180, which corresponds to KRW 1/8,000, which is the ratio of the Plaintiffs’ statutory reserve of inheritance tax imposed on the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to pay each of the Defendants 56,575,180, and delay damages therefrom. The Defendants are set off against the Plaintiffs’ statutory reserve of inheritance by making the claims for reimbursement with automatic claims, and are claimed as the instant counterclaim.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to inheritance tax amount paid by the Defendants

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the Evidence Nos. 31 through 34, Defendant ParkB, among the inheritance tax of KRW 452,601,468, Defendant ParkB, which was imposed, paid KRW 340,102,060 in total by paying the inheritance tax of KRW 7,428,340, and KRW 32,673,720 on March 15, 2016. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant ParkCC paid the inheritance tax, and there is no automatic claim to claim as a offset against Defendant ParkCC.

2) Determination on the ratio of inheritance tax sharing

Article 3(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the joint and several payment of inheritance tax shall be made within the limit of the property each co-inheritors received or are to receive. Article 25-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 425 of the Civil Act concerning the right to indemnity among joint and several obligors with respect to the joint and several liability under the tax law shall apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, where a part of co-inheritors has been jointly discharged as a result of payment of inheritance tax at one’s own expense, he/she may exercise the right to indemnity against the portion of other co-inheritors’s share, and the share among co-inheritors is the

3) Calculation of the amount of automatic bonds

Ultimately, against the Plaintiffs, Defendant ParkB has a claim for reimbursement of KRW 30 million on March 31, 2015, KRW 7,428,340 on December 28, 2015, KRW 340, and KRW 32,673,720 on March 15, 2016 ( KRW 37.5 million on March 31, 2015, KRW 928,542 on December 28, 2015, and KRW 4,084,215 on the part of KRW 340,00,000 on the inheritance tax borne by himself/herself, and each of them can be offset against the Plaintiffs’ right to claim reimbursement with the automatic claim.

(iv)the set-off date and calculation;

A) Although Article 492(1) of the Civil Act provides that a set-off is required against the Plaintiffs, who are several claims, the right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance against Defendant ParkB and the right to claim reimbursement against the Plaintiffs, who are automatic claims, even though Article 492(1) of the Civil Act provides that “if both of them have due to the due date” is the requirement of set-off, it is reasonable to deem that a claim for performance is made simultaneously with the due date when it is established without having to file a claim for performance in relation to the requirements for set-off. A claim for return of legal reserve of inheritance, which is a multiple claims, is established at the time of the death of the Deceased on September 28, 2014, and a claim for compensation, which is an automatic claim, is established on the date of each inheritance tax of Defendant ParkB, which is the set-off date. Therefore, it is set off within each equal amount retroactively from

B) Since August 22, 2015, the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served upon Defendant ParkB upon the Defendant ParkB’s performance of its obligations, each of the claims against Defendant ParkB were extinguished within the scope of their respective claims for reimbursement and their equivalent amount as indicated in the table below. The Plaintiffs’ claim for reimbursement of the forced portion against Defendant ParkB was extinguished within the scope of their respective claims for reimbursement against the said Plaintiffs as indicated in the table below, and the Plaintiffs’ claim for reimbursement of the forced portion remains only 86,149,450 won and damages for delay. Ultimately, the set-off of Defendant ParkB’s claim for reimbursement of the forced portion was reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and there is no grounds for the set-off defense against Defendant ParkB.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, Defendant ParkB is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs 91,063,238 won each of the 91,063,238 won and the set-off day following the set-off day to March 16, 2016 to Defendant ParkB for 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant ParkB is obligated to pay damages for delay from September 22, 2015 to November 25, 2016 to the day following the day of the issuance of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. Defendant ParkB is obligated to pay damages for delay from September 22, 2015 to September 15, 2016 to the day of full payment of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act.

Therefore, Defendant ParkB and ParkCC’s counterclaim claim, which seeks reimbursement against the Plaintiffs, is without merit, under the premise that the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiffs remains.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiffs' primary main claim, the remaining main claim, the defendant AD, KimD, the claims against the defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the EE Bank, the defendant Park BB, and ParkCC's counterclaim are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.