1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to 3, which was owned by the primary claim D (hereinafter “the deceased”) is the same year as the gift on April 17, 191.

4. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on 20.20. The deceased's children, and this constitutes an infringement of the legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiffs who are other inheritors of the deceased, and thus seek implementation of the registration of transfer to 1/15 of each real estate listed in the attached list 1 to 3 on the ground of the return of the legal reserve of inheritance.

B. The conjunctive claim is that the plaintiff A shall pay KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff shall claim for the payment of KRW 50,000,000 and the delay damages.

Since the Defendant donated the real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 4 to Plaintiff B on March 20, 2016, the Defendant sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the said donation.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the primary claim of the plaintiffs, the defendant defense that the defendant extinguished the prescription period for the claim for the return of the secured portion claimed by the plaintiffs.

However, according to the latter part of Article 1117 of the Civil Act, the right to claim the return of the legal reserve becomes extinct after the lapse of ten years from the time the inheritance commenced. Since there is no dispute between the parties that the deceased died on April 22, 2001, and it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of ten years from the lawsuit of this case, the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of this case expired by prescription.

On March 2016, the plaintiffs agreed that the defendant will give 50,000,000 won to E, and 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff A and F respectively, G, and H and I's shares in the event that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that it constitutes a waiver of the prescription interest. However, although the statement of the evidence No. 6 is alleged to constitute a waiver of the prescription interest, it is difficult to view the defendant to waive the plaintiff's benefit of the right to forced inheritance against the deceased's inherited property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

(b).