Claimant (Counter-Appellant) 1 and eight others (Attorney Jeong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other (Appellant) 1 and 2 others (Attorney Park Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The real estate listed in the table 1, 2, 5, and 13 Nos. 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 302, 340, 865/2, 601, 666, 683 equity, 3, 249, 79/79/2, 601, 666, 683 equity, 5, 2588, 204, 801/2, 601, 666, 683 equity, 99, 2723, 913/260, 601, 6683 equity, 279, 963 equity, 606, 6686, 6636, 686, 686, 6663

2. A claimant (other party to a trial), 1, 2, 4 (other party to a trial), 6, 783 shares of 302,340,865/2,601,66,683 shares of 405,792,79/2,601,666,683 shares of 50,50 shares of 50,000 shares of 50,000 won and 50,000,000 and 6 shares of 5,000,000 and 6 shares of 5,000,000,000 for the refund of rental deposit as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 1, 2, and 302,340,865/60,01,61,616,636,637,9636,29636,637,696,29636,

3. The other party(s) 1 shall pay 51,989,310 won, 42, 460 won to the claimant(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, and 42,970,549 won to the claimant(s) 3, 460 won, 48,10,190 won to the claimant(s) 5, and 48,190 won to the claimant(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, and the claimant(s) 42,970,549 won to the claimant(s) 44,365,460 won, 48,190 won to the claimant(s) 9, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day the judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

4. The claimant(s) 5 pays to the claimant(s) 1, the claimant(s) 2, the claimant(s) 4, the claimant(s) 6, the claimant(s) 7, the claimant(s) 8, the claimant(s) 92,271,100 won, the claimant(s) 76,264,522 won, the claimant(s) 85,68,655 won, and 85% per annum from the day following the day the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. All other parties’ claims for determination of the entitlement to a contributory portion are dismissed.

6. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

In this trial: A reasonable division shall be made between the petitioner (the other party to the trial, hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") and the other party (hereinafter referred to as the "other party") in respect of the inherited property listed in the attached Table 1.

An anti-trial: Preliminaryly, the other party’s entitlement to a contributory portion shall be determined at 30% of the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 1, 2, and 5 through 13, and 14m2 (number 1 omitted) and 14m2 (number 1 omitted) and 98m2 (number 2 omitted) of the △△△△△-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty 1 (the decedent’s resident registration number omitted) married between Nonparty 2 and Defendant 1 on October 1, 1940, and married between them, and died on July 26, 1984, and Nonparty 2 married with Nonparty 1 on May 16, 1987. Before Nonparty 2 died, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 were married with Nonparty 1, and died on March 1, 2008.

B. At the time of death, the decedent owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (The parties did not object to calculating the value and present value at the time of death of the decedent as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1).

C. The claimant, on September 15, 2009, sold his/her share in inheritance to the real estate listed in the list Nos. 1 3 and 4 of the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong building of Do, Do, Eup and Myeon”) without consultation on the division of inherited property for the payment of inheritance tax, etc. (However, the actual receipt amount is 794,000,000,000 won, subtracting the amount of money equivalent to 18/25 of the claimant’s share in statutory inheritance from the above amount of money 320,000,000 won, deducting the amount of money equivalent to 23,00,000,000 won, which is close to the claimant’s share in inheritance, for the payment of inheritance tax, etc. (However, the actual receipt amount is 30,000,000 won from the above amount, 200,000 won of the other party’s share in inheritance, which is close to the other party’s sales proceeds.

D. The decedent donated the property indicated in the [Attachment 2] list before the death to the claimant 3, claimant 5, claimant 9, and the other party (the parties do not object to calculating the value at the time of the death of the decedent at the price indicated in the [Attachment 2].

E. At the time of the death of the inheritee, there were KRW 355,00,000 ( KRW 15,000,000 on the ground floor + KRW 90,000 on the ground floor + KRW 101 + 70,000,000 + KRW 201 + KRW 90,000,000 + KRW 202 + KRW 90,000 on the ground of 202 + KRW 90,000 on the ground of 55,648,279 on each of the above immovables after the death of the inheritee. The other party raised KRW 50,000 after the death of the inheritee to repay the debts owed by the inheritee to Korea bank.

F. At the time of the death of the inheritee, there was KRW 50,000,00 as to the real estate listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 5 and 6 at the time of death of the inheritee

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 16, 19, 20, 25 evidence of Gap, Eul evidence of Nos. 5 to 26 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of this court's commission of appraisal to non-applicant 3, the fact inquiry results to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the purport of the whole examination.

2. Judgment on the anti-adjudication (request for decision on division)

A. The other party's assertion

Preliminaryly, the other party 1 had nursing the inheritee for three years prior to the death of the inheritee, as well as raising or maintaining the inheritee’s property on behalf of the inheritee because the health of the inheritee is not good for a long time, and the other party 2 paid the inheritee’s expenses or the weak value when the decedent is difficult to move, and the other party 3 provided the inheritee for three years prior to the death of the inheritee, which recognized all the other party’s contribution, and accordingly, 30% of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 13 as well as the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, 2, and 14 square meters and 14 square meters for the ○○○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted) and 14 square meters for the △△△△△△△-gun (number 2 omitted) large 98 square meters

B. Determination

Then, as seen earlier, the claimant's assertion is accepted and the inherited property is divided into inherited property, so the other party's argument on the contributory portion is to be determined.

(1) First, according to the statement in the evidence No. 4 as to the claim on the contributory portion of the other party 1’s contributory portion, the fact that the other party 1 provided a nursing service at the time of the inheritee’s disease can be acknowledged. However, as acknowledged by the other party 1, as recognized by the other party 1, the other party 1 was used for cerebrovascular surgery at around October 2002, and was not in a health condition of other party 1, such as being judged as graid cancer around December 2007, it appears that the other party 1 was not in a health condition that she would normally have been able to attend a level beyond ordinary support to the extent that contributory portion is recognized, and it is nothing more than the degree of performing the duty to support as an ordinary couple. Accordingly, it is insufficient to evaluate this as a special contribution, and there is no evidence to prove that the other party 1 supported the inheritee as much as it is deemed as a special contribution.

(2) 다음으로, 상대방 2의 기여분 주장에 대하여 보건대, 을 제1 내지 4호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 상대방 2가 병원비나 약제비로 상당한 금원을 지출하였고, 거동이 불편한 피상속인을 업고 다니는 등 기여를 한 사실은 인정된다. 다만, 상대방 2 스스로도 서울 중구 ♤♤동에 있는 ♤♤동삼성아파트 ♡♡♡동 ●●●●호에 관하여 피상속인으로부터 전세보증금을 증여받았고, 그 후 위 전세보증금에 상대방 1, 상대방 2의 돈을 합하여 위 아파트를 매입하게 되었다고 인정하고 있는데, 상대방 2가 피상속인으로부터 지급받은 전세보증금의 액수를 알 수 있는 자료가 없어(청구인들은 상대방 2가 피상속인으로부터 전세보증금 150,000,000원을 증여받았다고 자인하고 있다고 주장하나, 상대방 2가 이를 자인하였다거나 전세보증금의 액수가 위 금액임을 인정할 수 있는 자료가 없다) 이를 특별수익에 고려할 수 없는 사정 등을 고려하면, 상대방 2에게 어느 정도 기여가 있다고 하더라도 기여분을 인정할 정도라고 보기는 어렵다. 따라서 상대방 2의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(3) Lastly, there is no evidence to support the other party 3’s claim on the contributory portion to the extent that the other party 3 should correct the statutory inheritance portion, and there is no evidence to support the other party 3’s claim on the contributory portion. Thus, the other party 3’s claim on the contributory portion is without merit (the other party is claiming a determination on the contributory portion as to the contributory portion with the 14m2 and the 14m20m2 and the 98m20m2 and the 14m20m2 and the 00m20m2000, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, each of the above real property is not owned by the inheritee at the time of the death of the inheritee, but owned by the Yeongdeungpo-gun-gun. According to Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act, the claim on the contributory portion under Article 1013(2) of the Civil Act or the claim under Article 1014 of the Civil Act regarding each of the above real property.

3. Determination as to the assertion of special benefits

A. The claimant asserts that other party 1 donated the third floor building constructed on the ground of 189 square meters on the ○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, △△△△ (number 3 omitted) to the decedent. However, according to the evidence No. 17, the above third floor building at present is a building newly constructed under the name of the other party 1 on July 31, 1990 after the previous building was removed. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above third floor building was donated to the other party 1 on the ground of the evidence No. 26 on the sole basis of the statement No. 26, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the allegation in this part is without merit.

나. 청구인들은 상대방 2, 상대방 3이 이천시 ◁◁면 ▷▷리 (지번 6 생략) 임야 846㎡ 중 각 169/846 지분, 이천시 ◁◁면 ▷▷리 (지번 7 생략) 임야 2,460㎡ 중 각 492/2,460 지분을 피상속인으로부터 증여받았다고 주장하나, 갑 제5, 30호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

C. The claimant asserts that, on the premise that the other party 1 was donated the building of 189 square meters and the three-story above above ground-based, ○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, (number 3 omitted), the total sum of the rent from February 1, 1991 to January 31, 201, the rent of KRW 420,278,250 generated from each of the above real estate should also be deemed special profits.

In light of the above, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 was only given a donation of funds to purchase 189 square meters from ○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 3 omitted). As such, it cannot be deemed that the said real estate was directly given a donation. As seen earlier, the above third-story building is not the property donated from the inheritee. As such, as seen earlier, the above assertion by the claimant on the premise that Nonparty 1 was given a donation from the inheritee. Therefore, even if Nonparty 1 was given a donation of each of the above real estate as alleged by the claimant, the said assertion by the claimant on the premise that Defendant 1 was given a donation from the inheritee cannot be deemed as a special benefit.

D. The claimant asserts that, on the basis of the right to collect the transmission of a forest land of 675,174 square meters from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 201, the rental income of 285,000,000, and the rental income of 45,000,000,000, generated from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, the other party 2 and the other party 3 donated, should be included in special profits.

As seen earlier, although the fact that other parties 2 and 3 donated 1/2 shares of the forest as above, it is recognized that the donee cannot be viewed as a special benefit from the profits accrued from freely using or earning profits from the donated property. Thus, the claimant's assertion is without merit.

마. 청구인들은 상대방 2가 피상속인으로부터 서울 중구 ♤♤동에 있는 ♤♤동삼성아파트 ♡♡♡동 ●●●●호를 증여받았다고 주장하나, 갑 제5호증의 기재에 의하면, 상대방 2가 2006. 4. 14. 매매를 원인으로 위 아파트에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실을 인정할 수 있을 뿐이고, 달리 위 아파트를 피상속인으로부터 증여받았다는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 청구인들의 위 주장은 이유 없다[다만, 상대방 2가 위 아파트의 전세보증금을 피상속인으로부터 증여받은 사실은 인정하고 있는데, 그 정확한 금액을 알 수 없는 사정은 2. 나. (2)에서 본 바와 같다].

F. Although the other party asserts that the claimant 3 received a donation of real estate and business funds, such as two bonds and childbirth, from the decedent, the other party's assertion is without merit, as it does not specify the donated property or value. Thus, the other party's assertion is without merit.

사. 상대방들은 청구인 5가 1986년경 서울 강동구 ▲▲동 (지번 9 생략) 대 128.5㎡와 그 지상 소재 2층 건물을 증여받았고, 그 후 1989년경 서울 광진구 ■■동 (지번 10 생략) 소재 주택을 매수할 때도 피상속인으로부터 상당한 돈을 증여받았다고 주장하나, 을 제30호증의 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 상대방들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

아. 상대방들은 청구인 3이 1975. 3. 10. 서울 성동구 ◆◆동 (지번 11 생략) 스라브주택 대지 40평 및 건평 40평을 매수할 시 매매대금 8,350,000원을 증여받았다고 주장하나, 을 제28, 29호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 상대방들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

4. Judgment on this Court Decision (Claim for Division of Inherited Property)

(a) An heir, a statutory share in inheritance, or a share in division;

(1) According to the above facts, as the wife of the inheritee, the legal share of inheritance is 3/25 shares, and the legal share of inheritance is 2/25 shares as the claimant and counterpart 2, and the other party 3 are the children of the inheritee, respectively, and the subject of division of this case is the disposal proceeds of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 13 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the building in the Dong-dong, Do, Do, Dong-dong. Meanwhile, the obligation to return the rental deposit existing as of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 Nos. 1, 1, 200,000 (the sum of the obligation to return the rental deposit existing as of the real estate stated in the attached Table 1, 1, and 2) is KRW 405,000 (35,00,000 as of the time of the death of the inheritee + KRW 50,000 after the death of the inheritee).

(2) As to this, the other party asserts that each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 can not be subject to the adjudication on the division of inherited property with the property, the division of which has been completed (in particular, the Dong-dong building in Do, in a third party

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there has been an agreement on partition of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and as seen earlier, the building in the Do of Do of Do of Do of Do of Seoul and the other party sold their own statutory shares of inheritance to a third party. The sale is merely a sale for the disposal of inheritance tax, etc. without the premise of the division agreement between co-inheritors, but it is merely a sale for the disposal of inheritance tax, etc., and it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement on division of the building in Do of Do of

(3) The other party asserts that the sales amount of the claimant's share in the building in the Do-dong in Do-dong is more than the actual sales amount. Thus, although the claimant's claim cannot be divided into the disposal amount claimed by the claimant, it is insufficient to recognize the other party's claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the other party's claim is without merit.

(b) Calculation of specific shares of inheritance;

(1) First of all, the calculation of deemed inherited property by aggregating the inherited property of the inheritee and the special profits of the co-inheritors, and the amount of each statutory share of inherited property by multiplying the statutory share of inherited property of the co-inheritors is calculated, and then the modified share of inherited property of co-inheritors is calculated by deducting special profits. Accordingly, the specific share of inherited property of the claimant and the other party in this case is calculated as follows

(2) Value of deemed inherited property: 3,937,525,702 won (i.e., inherited property, namely, property of this case, the sum of 3,240,294,620 won in the attached Table 1 + 3,240,294,620 won in aggregate of the proceeds from the disposal of the real property of this case and the building in the Dong-dong, e.g., the property of this case + 1,152,231,082 won in aggregate of the special profits of the claimant, claimant 5, claimant 9, and the other party - 1,205,00,000 won in the attached Table 1, 5,000 in the attached Table 1, 6).

(3) The statutory value of inheritance by inheritor

○ Petitioners, other parties 2, and other parties 3: KRW 315,002,056, respectively (i.e., deemed inherited property of KRW 3,937,525,702 x statutory inheritance of KRW 2/25, but less than KRW 3,15,00)

○ Other party 1: 472,503,084 won (=3,937,525,702 won deemed inherited property x statutory inheritance 3/25)

(4) the amended portion of inheritance (a modification by special benefit)

○ Appellant 1, 2, Appellant 4, 6, 7, Appellant 8 (hereinafter “Appellant 1, etc.”): 315,002,056, respectively.

○ Claimant 3: 262,553,970 won (=legal share of inheritance 315,002,056 won - Special Benefits 52,448,086 won)

○ Appellant 5: 270,665,992 (=legal share of inheritance 315,002,056) - Special proceeds 44,336,064)

○ Appellant 9: 292,385,104 (=legal share of inheritance 315,002,056) - Special proceeds 22,616,952)

○ Other party 1: 202,619,724 won (=legal share of inheritance 472,503,084 won - Special Profits 269,83,360 won)

○ Other party 2 and 3: each -66,471,254 won (i.e., statutory share of inheritance 315,002,056 won - Special Benefits 381,473,310 won)

(5) Specific shares of excess special proceeds after the share;

According to the above calculation, since the other party 2 and the other party 3 are over special beneficiaries, the specific shares of inheritance of the other party 2 and the other party 3 are zero, and the excess special profit is divided according to the statutory shares of the other co-inheritors, as follows.

○ Claimant 1, etc.: Each 302,340,865 won [The revised portion of inheritance = 315,02,056 won - 12,661,191 won for special gains in excess of distribution: 132,942,508 won in total of the special gains in excess of others 2 and 3 x 2/21 shares];

○ Claimant 3: 249,892,779 won [2,53,970 won in the modified portion of inheritance = 12,661,191 won in the proportionally distributed special profit (=the above excess special profit of KRW 132,942,508 x 2/21 shares)];

○ Claimant 5: 258,004,801 won [270,665,992 won as modified portion of inheritance - 12,661,191 won as divided special gains (=the above excess special gains 132,942,508 won x 2/21 shares)]

○ Claimant 9: KRW 279,723,913 [2,385,104 in the modified portion of inheritance = 12,661,191 in the divided amount of special profit (i.e., excess special profit 132,942,508 x 2/21 shares)];

○ Other party 1: KRW 183,627,938 [The amended portion of inheritance = KRW 202,619,724 - the proportionally distributed special profits of KRW 18,91,786 [i.e., the above excess special profits of KRW 132,942,508 x 3/21 shares];

(c) Calculation of the final share of inheritance and method of division;

(1) Since there is no difference between the market value and the current market value at the time of commencement of inheritance, the specific portion of inheritance ultimately becomes the final portion of inheritance.

(2) Method of division

(A) In view of the fact that the petitioners share the same interests, and the real estate listed in the table Nos. 7 through 13 of the attached table No. 1 among the inherited property is used as an overland to maintain the intention of the preference, and thus desire to preserve and maintain it, and the other party 1’s final share does not reach the sales price of the other party in the Dong-dong building in △△△, the pertinent real estate to be divided shall be divided into co-ownership by the petitioners (attached Table 1 5,000,000 and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000 as to the lease deposit amount for the real estate listed in the table Nos. 1 and 2 of the attached table No. 5, and 5,000,000). The other party 1 is obligated to receive the money corresponding to his/her final share of inheritance from the sales price of the other party in the Dong-dong building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is currently owned, to the claimant.

(B) Therefore, the real estate of this case is subject to 302,340,865/2,665/2,601,666,683 shares (the last share of inheritance between the petitioners, such as the claimant 1, and the calculation formula of the division: 1,814,045,190 shares (=302,340,865 x 6) + 249,892,779 + 258,004,004,801 + 279,723,913 + 279,72,792,79/2, 601, 666,683 shares (the last share of inheritance between the petitioners 3), 258,04,2601,666,683 shares (the final share of inheritance between the petitioners 5 applicants 2501/601,66,683 (the claimant 29639636,7,796969)

Furthermore, just like the co-ownership ratio of KRW 405,00,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease on the real estate listed in the table 1 and 2 attached Table 1, and KRW 50,00,00 for the obligation to refund the deposit for lease on the real estate listed in the table 5 and 6 attached Table 1, and the obligation to refund the deposit for lease on the real estate listed in the table 5 and 6, and KRW 50,000 for the repayment of the deposit for lease on the real estate listed in the table 1 and 2 attached Table 1, the claimant 1, etc. should bear each share of 302,340,865/2,601,60,666,683 shares of the claimant 249,892,7792,60,601,666,604,801/2,601,603 shares of the claimant 5,7923,913/2601,

In addition, the other party 1 has 51,989,310 won [the excess owned 47,372,062 won + 631,00,000 won - the other party 183,627,938 of the sales price of the building in Do of Do of Do of Do of Do of 102,340,865/2,601,66,683 shares] 42,970,549 won [the above excess owned 447,37,372,062 won x 24962 won x 3065 won x 24960,6465 x 2965 of the Civil Code x 36065 x 46865 x 4665 x 9665 x 965 x 276465 x 9665 x 3675 x 56465 x x 1666465 x x x 5676665 x x 5 x 5 5 x 1666466665 .

Finally, Claimant 5 holds 92,271,100 won for each claimant 1, etc. (i.e., 794,00,000 won x 794,000,000 won among the proceeds from the sale of the building in Dong-dong in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Do) 302,340,865/2,666,683 shares for the last portion of inheritance among the petitioners 1, etc. x 76,264,522 (i.e., 794,00,00,000 won among the proceeds from the sale of the building in Dong-dong in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Do, Do 794,779/2,601,66,683 shares) x 265% of the total amount of Claimant x 765% of the total amount of Claimant x 765% of the total amount of Claimant 1,06365% of the total amount of 796

5. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of this case shall be judged in accordance with the above order as to the anti-trial (request for decision on division of inherited property) and the main adjudication (request for division of inherited property).

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)

1) The claimant asserts that a total of KRW 395,00,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease on each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 should be considered when the inheritance is divided. In full view of the fact that the inheritance is not subject to consideration, but all inheritors are considered when the inheritance is divided, and that the amount of KRW 50,000 for the repayment of the above bank obligations is increased, it is reasonable to calculate that there is KRW 405,00,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease on each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of the division of inherited property (the amount of KRW 355,00,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease on an existing property + the increased amount of KRW 50,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease deposit £« 50,000 for the refund of the deposit for lease on an existing property).