1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The F deceased on August 28, 2014, and the Plaintiffs and G, their children, inherited the network F’s property each 1/4 equity.

C. G died on October 18, 2015, and the Defendants are children of the network G.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ net F is a building on the ground of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, and five lots of land (hereinafter “I building”) for the deceased, South-Namer G.

(2) Multi-household 102 (hereinafter “J multi-household”) on the ground of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul High Court Decision 80 million won for purchase of No. 1320, and

(3) The Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu K and 4 lots of land 3 Dong 706 (hereinafter “L apartment”) are KRW 15 million.

(2) Since there was a shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance due to the gift of KRW 753 million in total, including KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000 for the disposal price, the Defendants, who are the heirs of the network G, are obligated to refund to the Plaintiffs each amount of KRW 117,253,366, which corresponds to the shortage in legal reserve of inheritance (=938,026,928, which is converted into the monetary value at the time of the commencement of inheritance x 1/4 of the Plaintiffs’ inheritance x legal reserve of KRW 1/2 of the inheritance x legal reserve of KRW 1/2) and damages for delay. (2) The Defendants’ net G did not receive any gift from the networkF

Even if the donation was received,

Even if the Plaintiff was aware of the net F’s act of disposing of the property before his death, the Plaintiffs were aware of the fact that the deceased F’s inheritance commenced and returned around August 28, 2014. However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after one year from the time, the right to claim the return of the forced portion expired.

B. The Plaintiffs of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 from the purchase fund of 1320,000 I building 1 whether the net G received a donation from the networkF, and the networkF claimed that the net G donated the amount of KRW 80,00,000,000,000, which was loaned as security by providing the L Apartment owned by itself, to the network G around May 25, 2005.

Domins, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4.