beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ share of 95,812,605/1,637,236,000 among each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff on April 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The network D and deceased on April 3, 1991 as a legally married couple, and the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on January 15, 201.
In the family relation certificate of the deceased, the plaintiff, the defendants, and G are included.
B. On April 29, 2003, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer (each of 1/2 shares) in the name of the Defendants on April 29, 2003 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion of the legal reserve of inheritance infringed upon the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance by donating land Nos. 1 and 2 to the Defendants, the Defendants should return the legal reserve of inheritance infringed on the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff is not the deceased’s heir, but the Plaintiff is not the deceased’s father. However, even if the adoption was not effective at the time of the report of birth of the natural father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s report of birth, if the adoption did not take effect thereafter, the null and void report of birth becomes effective retroactively as an adoption report. According to the evidence No. 1-1, D’s report of birth was recognized on December 28, 1959 as the natural father’s report of birth between the deceased and the deceased. Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 8-1, the deceased accepted the report as the intention of raising the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s child at the time of the report of birth of the Plaintiff, and later protected the Plaintiff as his child, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.