Claimant 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other party (Attorney Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1.(Attached Form 1) The inherited property in each paragraph shall be divided into co-ownership by the claimant 2 and 3 with each 1/2 shares.

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person in both the present and semi-trials.

Each inherited property described in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3] shall be divided into 2/9 shares of the claimant and 3/9 shares of the other party, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case.

A. On January 28, 2007, Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “the decedent”) died on the deceased, and at the time of death, the details of real estate and deposit claims included in the inherited property are as shown in [Attachment 1].

B. At the time of the death of the inheritee, there are the other parties who are the spouse of the inheritee and the claimants who are children of the inheritee.

2. The inheritor and the statutory shares in inheritance; and

According to the above facts of recognition, the other party is the spouse of the inheritee, who is the spouse of each inheritee, and the claimant jointly succeeded to the inherited property of the inheritee. The statutory share of inheritance is 3/9 shares of the other party, and 2/9 shares of the claimant, respectively (3/9 + 2/9 x 3 = 1).

3. Scope of inherited property subject to division;

A. As recognized earlier, the property owned by the decedent at the time of the death of the decedent is each real estate and each deposit claim, and the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of each inherited property is as follows.

(1) Paragraph (1) 1: 23,712,00 won (=2,470,000 square meters/ square meters x 19.2 square meters x 1/2)

(2) Aggregate of deposit claims in paragraphs 2 and 3: 5,497,657 won (=4,948,653 won + 549,004 won)

(3) A total of paragraphs (1) and (2): 29,209,657 won (=23,712,00 won + 5,497,657 won)

(b) The claimant asserts that any of the following property is included in the inherited property, but does not accept it for the same reasons as described below, or does not exclude it from the subject of subdivision even if it is included in the inherited property:

(1) Forests and sculptures owned by the inheritee after the death of the inheritee: lack of evidence

(2) All claims described in [Attachment 2]: There shall be no evidence

(3) Each real estate listed in [Attachment 3] (hereinafter referred to as "real estate and buildings"),

(A) The claimant's assertion

On December 11, 2006, an inheritee prepared a testamentary document stating a testamentary gift to the other party to the land and building carried out as of December 11, 2006, and the act of preparing the said notarial deed at the commission of one of the members of the Ro-dong legal office at the request of the inheritee who is a notary public, was null and void by Article 21 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Notary Public Act, which is the qualification of the client and thus, it is null and void by Article 21 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Notary Public Act. In addition, Nonparty 2 signed and sealed as a witness on a notarial deed as an assistant to the Ro-dong legal office who is a notary public and cannot become a witness or a participant pursuant to Article 33(3) subparag. 7 of the Notary Public Act. Thus, the above notarial deed is null and void, and the land and buildings

(B) Determination

If the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the registry of real estate, it shall be presumed that the procedure and cause for such transfer is legitimate and there is a burden to prove it to the party who asserts the unfair procedure and cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46256, Feb. 28, 2003). According to the records and the whole purport of the examination of this case, a notary public of the last joint law office (hereinafter referred to as the "joint law office of this case") has prepared a testament on December 11, 2006 with a deed (number omitted) signed on December 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case"), and the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial acts prepared a testament on December 11, 2006 with the consent of the inheritee that the above joint law office of this case had been carried out by the witness 9 and 2 to the other party at the above law office, and signed the testamentary gift on the land and all annexed buildings by the testator 9 and 2 to the other party.

According to Article 21 (1) and (3) of the Notary Public Act, when a notary public is the spouse or relative of a client, his/her agent or a person who has an interest in the matter commissioned (the same shall also apply in case where the relation of relatives is terminated) (2) If a notary public has an interest in the matter commissioned, he/she shall not perform his/her duties. Thus, if a notary public and a client are the same person or there is an interest among them,

However, according to the Notary Public Act, a notary public, who is the author of the authentication of the will of this case, is not the joint law office of this case, but the attorney-at-law in charge of the authentication of this case belonging to the above law office, and both the client and the non-party 1 attorney are attorneys-at-law who established the joint law office of this case, but it is difficult to see that the same person

In addition, Article 33 (3) 7 of the Notary Public Act provides that a notary public’s assistant cannot be a participant in principle, and therefore, the participant is required to participate in the authentication pursuant to Article 29 of the same Act. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the decedent, who is the client, is not a blind person or a person who does not understand letters, so the authentication of this case does not require the participant. Non-party 2, who is an employee of the joint law office of this case, is not a participant, but a witness pursuant to Article 27 of the Notary Public Act. According to the Notary Public Act, Non-party 2, who is an employee of the joint law office of this case, is not a witness, and is present as a witness pursuant to Article 27 of the Notary Public Act, and there is no separate provision that limits the qualification of the participant, and therefore, the authentication of this case does not have the effect solely on the ground that the witness who

Therefore, the other party is deemed to legally receive the land and buildings that he/she has obtained from the inheritee. Unlike the comprehensive legacy that acquire the ownership of real estate which is naturally bequeathed pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act, a person who receives a specific legacy is merely entitled to claim the performance of testamentary gift to the head of the family (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73445 delivered on May 27, 2003), and the specific testamentary gift belongs to the inheritor once it is inherited property, and the ownership of the specific testamentary gift is transferred to the donee through the performance of the testamentary gift.

The land and buildings carried out in accordance with the above legal principles shall be included in the inherited property, but since the ownership transfer registration has already been made in the name of the other party according to the above facts, the division or testamentary gift on the part shall be deemed to have been completed, and the execution of the division or testamentary gift on the part shall not be included in the " inherited property subject to division" to be

(4) Deposits in borrowed-name accounts

(A) The claimant's assertion

Since the decedent was managed as a borrowed account by using the name of Nonparty 7, 5, a family member of the other party, including the other party, Nonparty 7, a branch of the inheritee, and his employees, all deposits of various financial institutions under these names shall be included in the inherited property, and even if not, they should be considered as special benefits.

(B) Determination

According to the whole purport of Gap evidence No. 8-1 and the whole purport of the examination, it is recognized that the non-party 10, who was the seat of the deceased, was allowed to open an account in his name, such as Korean investment securities (Account No. 1 omitted), and (Account No. 2 omitted) in his name at the request of the deceased and to use it by the deceased. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the funds of the above deposit account were the property of the deceased (However, according to the records, since there was no deposit at the time of inheritance in the deposit account in the name of the above non-party 10, each of the above non-party 10 was not inherited property, it cannot be recognized as inherited property, but the non-party 10, who was the seat of the deceased, shall be determined

However, there is no evidence to conclude that each of the accounts in the name of other except the non-party 10 is out of the property of the inheritee.

C. The other party asserts that a solatium received from the claimant and the other party after the death of the inheritee should also be included in the inherited property, but this is not the property of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of inheritance, so it cannot be subject to division of inherited property. Therefore, the other party's above assertion is without merit

4. Determination as to whether to grant special benefits

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 1008 of the Civil Act, the determination of whether to grant special benefits ought to be based on whether equity among heirs would be undermined if the property for receipt is not considered as the advance payment of the inheritance portion.

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of this case, the property donated or bequeathed to the heir before the death of the decedent and the property acquired with special profits that can be assessed as being donated even if the heir did not receive a direct donation shall be as shown in attached Form 4.

B. If the special profit-making property is money, the amount converted into the monetary value at the time of commencement of the inheritance should be recognized as the special profit-making property, taking into account the change in monetary value. Since it is reasonable to use the DNA 2) which appears to reflect the change in the price level of the whole economy, in the case of money, the monetary value at the time of commencement of the inheritance of the special profit-making property is calculated as “the amount of special profit-making property 】 the amount of the special profit-making property 】 the value of the special profit-making property 】 the value of the GDPR / the value of the GDPR 3) at the time of death.

C. The claimant and the other party asserted that property with special benefits exists in addition to the special benefits recognized above with respect to each other, but each of the above arguments is without merit for the following reasons.

(1) The claimant, on September 21, 1978, donated by the decedent to the other party on September 21, 1978, and the building on the land of 167.9 square meters and 167.9 square meters of Songpa-gu Seoul ( Address 3 omitted) and Songpa-gu, the claimant purchased the building with the proceeds of disposing of the land of Songpa-gu and 167.9 square meters, and sold it to the other party on September 22, 198, and on October 22, 2003, the other party sold it to the non-party 11 on October 2, 2003. The claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of 120 million won against Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address 4 omitted) was also donated to the other party from the decedent, and the other party claimed that the lease deposit amount of 5018 square meters of forest land and 5018 square meters owned by the decedent was specially distributed on September 29, 2006.

According to the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, the other party completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on September 21, 1978 with respect to Dongdaemun-gu Seoul ( Address 6 omitted) on January 22, 1979, and the other party completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 22, 198, Songpa-gu ( Address 3 omitted) and 167.9 square meters on the ground of sale on September 29, 198, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on November 4, 2003 to Nonparty 11 on October 2, 2003. The inheritee transferred the ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 31, 1976 to the other party to the above real estate or transferred the ownership amount equivalent to 1/2 of the forest and field to Nonparty 12, the other party to the above transfer on the ground of sale on September 29, 2006.

(2) Next, the claimant alleged that KRW 99,200,000, which was deposited from the Korean Investment Securities Account (Account Number 3 omitted) of the inheritee on April 7, 2004, which was deposited from the other party’s account and transferred to the SCB account (Account Number 4 omitted) under the name of the other party constitutes the special benefits of the other party. Thus, according to the records, as alleged above, the account was deposited from the other party’s account in the name of the other party to the above Japanese Bank to the above Japanese Bank account in the name of the other party, and on the other hand, on April 8, 2004, the amount of KRW 10,000,000, which was deposited from the above Japanese Investment Securities Account in the name of the other party to the account under the name of the other party to the account and the deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 from the account in the name of the other party to the account cannot be acknowledged as the other party to the account.

5. Calculation of specific shares in inheritance;

A. General Principles

The aggregate value of the property of an inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance and the special proceeds of coinheritors at the time of commencement of inheritance shall be determined by adding the value of inherited property deemed to be inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance, and the amount calculated by multiplying each statutory share of inheritance by the statutory share of coinheritors, and then calculated by deducting the special proceeds from each statutory share of inheritance. If the special proceeds of some inheritors exceed the statutory share of inheritance, the special beneficiary does not have the obligation to return the special proceeds of excess, but the other inheritors do not have any share in the real estate of inherited property. As such, the specific share of inherited property of the other inheritors is deemed to have no special beneficiary, and the remaining inheritors shall be calculated by assuming that the special proceeds of the heir and the other inheritors are shared by the statutory

(b) Deemed inherited property;

(a) Value of inherited property: 29,209,657 won;

(b) Value of special proceeds: 1,251,466,108 won;

(3) Deemed inherited property: 1,251,466,108 won (=29,209,657 won + 1,251,46,108 note 4)

(c) Specific inheritance shares by inheritor;

The calculation process and calculation results shall be as shown in attached Form 6.

(d) Method of subdivision;

[Attachment 1] The real estate and each deposit claim shall be divided into co-ownership of 1/2 shares of each claimant 2 and 3.

6. Conclusion

Thus, this case's inherited property division claim shall be judged as above and judged as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Egropi (Presiding Judge)

1) The market price of real estate was determined based on the officially assessed individual land price in the case of land and housing, the national bank price data in the case of apartment houses, and the statutory standard price in the case of buildings other

2) GDP display : The price index of the total domestic production (GDP) used to indicate in a monetary unit with the same value as a standard year. The question arises in comparison with the total domestic production between two points is not nominal but actual amount. GDPRP display dyplate is the price index at the time of seeking the real value of the domestic total production. Specifically, it is intended to divide the items of expenditure, such as consumption and investment expenditure, which constitute the national total production, into each price index, and seek the real value, and divide the total domestic production into the real domestic production acquired in addition. In this sense, GDP display dyplate is an abstract price that can only be confirmed ex post facto only by calculation, rather than a specific price in the form of rice 1-ma, which is an abstract price, and at the same time, it can also be considered as an increase in the overall economic price index, but it can also be deemed as an increase in the overall price index in the case of the national price index.

Note 3) The number of GDP displayers is calculated only in annual figures. The number of GDP displayers (attached Form 5) is also calculated.

4) In principle, inasmuch as the decedent’s inherited property = the inherited property held at the time of the decedent’s death + Special benefit property + or in this case, the land and buildings carried out at the time of the decedent’s death are included in the inherited property at the same time as the decedent’s death and also included in the other party’s special benefit property and calculated doublely, the “contributable inherited property” shall be calculated as “the inherited property held at the