1. Defendant E, for each of the above amounts of KRW 22,694,192 and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff A, KRW 34,041,288, Plaintiff B, C, and D.

1. In the absence of dispute, the fact that Nonparty G (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on January 19, 2019 and succeeded to the Plaintiff B, C, D, Nonparty H, and I, the spouse of the Plaintiff A and his/her children; the Defendants were the children of the said I; the Defendants’s contribution was made on November 29, 2014 on the ground that the Defendants were the children of the said I; the Plaintiff’s contribution was made on November 29, 2014, and the Seoul Mapo-gu J apartment K (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and 3/4 shares in Defendant E’s name and/or 1/4 shares. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the scope of basic property

A. The plaintiffs asserted that there was no inherited property at the time of the deceased's death, and that the deceased's market value of the real estate donated to the defendants by the deceased was 490,360,000 won and 96,94,000 won of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case and the secured property of the real estate of this case shall be the basic property for the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance between the commencement of inheritance. Thus, the apartment of this case cannot be the basic property for the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance, and even if the apartment of this case is the basic property for the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance, the apartment of this case shall be 159,00,000 won of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case.

B. There is no dispute between the parties who did not exist any particular inherited property at the time of the deceased’s death of inherited property.

C. Determination as to the Defendants’ special benefits (1) The Defendants donated the instant real estate share as seen earlier.

(2) As to this, the Defendants did not make a donation with the knowledge that the deceased and the Defendants would incur losses on the legal reserve of inheritance. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs pursuant to the main sentence of Article 1114 of the Civil Act asserted that the Defendants cannot claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance against the Defendants. According to the aforementioned evidence, the deceased’s donation of all the property to the Defendants, and the deceased at the time are only made.