1. The defendant shall transfer each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the plaintiffs by relevant plaintiff in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and the Plaintiff A were married with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B, the South-North Defendant, and the Plaintiff C were married with the Plaintiff.

B. On July 11, 2011, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on the ground of the gift dated 7, 2011 as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was the sole property of the Deceased (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

C. On July 18, 201, the Deceased died. At the time of death, there was no particular inherited property or inheritance liability, and there was no inherited property or testamentary gift to the inheritor except each of the instant real property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, since there was a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance in the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, as the result of the deceased's donation of each of the real estate of this case, which was the only property of the deceased, the defendant is liable to return the insufficient legal reserve of inheritance to the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances

B. On the part of the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant asserts that each of the instant real estate was purchased from G and trusted in the name of the deceased, and did not belong to the deceased, and thus does not constitute a basic property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

According to the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the deceased, it can be acknowledged that the F, the mother of the deceased, entered into a sales contract to purchase each of the instant real estate from G around January 2007 to KRW 150,000,000, and paid the remainder of KRW 130,000 to G at its own expense. However, it is difficult to deem that there was a title trust, not a gift, for each of the instant real estate, solely on the circumstance that F, bears the burden of purchase funds.

In addition, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is the F.