1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant, including the claim added by this court, is as follows.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) the Defendant received a gift or testamentary gift from the deceased E before the deceased’s death; and (b) the Plaintiff, who is another co-inheritors, was infringed on the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant, as the principal return of the original property, the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration based on the forced reserve of inheritance on the portion of the real property indicated in the separate sheet, as the return of the original property, and sought for the payment of KRW 378,240,197,453,58, and delay damages therefrom.

3. As to this part of the claim for restitution of legal reserve of inheritance, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

However, some of the following shall be added:

A " appraiser of the first instance court" shall be added in the front of "W" in the 8th sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

1. On the 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance, “The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit,” adding “(it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is a donation of cash, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to the effect that the real estate, as alleged in this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, should be included in the underlying property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, and that the cash itself, as a donation from the network E

Following the 11th to 10th of the first instance judgment, “the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit,” the following: “The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not the basic property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, but the cash itself donated from the network E, which should be included in the underlying property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.” However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone received cash donation from the network E as alleged.