It is recognized that the fact was made according to the deceased’s donation or testamentary gift will.

The fact that each transfer of ownership was made without the deceased’s intention of donation or testamentary gift against the Defendant is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that each transfer of ownership was made by the deceased’s gift to the Defendant or

2011dan485 Registration, etc. of transfer of ownership

Gux 1 other

ParkOO et al. and three others

April 26, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

As to the portion of the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12, and 13, each of the two-thirds of the two-thirds of the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1, 4, 6-8, 12, and 13, each of the two-thirds of the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 5 and 9, each of the two-thirds of the two-thirds of the real estate listed in the separate list No. 11, each of the two-thirds of the real estate listed in the separate list No. 11, and each of the two-thirds of the real estate is subject to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of real name; and (2) each of the two-thirds of the real estate listed in the separate list No. 3 is subject to the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Incheon District Court No. 29478, Jul. 6, 2010; and (3) the Incheon District Court No.131.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased Park DoD (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") owned each real estate listed in [Attachment 1-13 Nos. 1-13 (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") and died on June 4, 2010.

B. The deceased’s heir is the wife Defendant 0B, Defendant YB, Defendant ParkE, ParkA, ParkF, ParkCC, and the Plaintiffs (child Park GG died earlier than the deceased, and Plaintiff HaH and his child Park II, the heir of Park GG, were married on behalf of the deceased).

C. With respect to the real estate of this case 1-13, each registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant Park Jong-A, 0B, and Park Jong-CC (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Park Jong-A, etc.") (hereinafter referred to as the "each registration of ownership transfer of this case"), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of establishment of ownership of the nearest area of this case").

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1-4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Claim against Defendant ParkA, etc.

(A) Since the registration of ownership transfer of this case primarily becomes null and void as it was made without the deceased’s consent to donate or testamentary gift to Defendant ParkA, etc., Defendant Park Jong-13, etc. is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of 2/13 portion of the real estate of this case, which corresponds to the plaintiffs’ share recovery, or to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer cancellation.

(B) Since the legal reserve of inheritance of this case was infringed upon by the transfer registration of each ownership of this case, Defendant Park Jong-A et al. is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership due to the restoration of real name with respect to the shares of 1/13 of the real estate of this case 1-13, or to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer registration.

(2) Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Since the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage in the instant case is null and void based on the registration of the invalidation of the cause, Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage with respect to the shares of 2/13 of the Plaintiffs, which constitute the shares of the Plaintiffs, around the instant 3, 10 real estate, and the shares of 1/13, which constitute the shares of

B. Defendant ParkA et al.’s assertion

(1) Defendant ParkA et al. donated or bequeathed the real estate of this case from the deceased, and thus, the Plaintiff’s primary assertion is without merit.

(2) When Park GG, the decedents of the plaintiffs, were living, the deceased donated to Park GG the North Korean map 341-2, Emba-345, Emba-1, 85-1, 360, 85-2, 85-2, and 201 of Emba-3, Emba-2, Emba-gun, Emba-gun, Emba-gun, Emba, the decedents of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary

C. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Since the registration of the establishment of the creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case is based on the application for annual payment by annual installments of the defendant Park Jong-A, the representative of inheritance.

3. Determination

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary assertion

(1) The fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate 1-13 was made without the deceased’s intent to donate or testamentary gift to the deceased’s Defendant Park ParkA, etc., as alleged by the plaintiffs, is insufficient to recognize this by only the written evidence of No. 13 (including natural disaster No. 13), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence No. 7-12 (including the paper number), each of the instant registration of ownership transfer was made by the deceased’s intent to donate or testamentary gift to the deceased ParkA,

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary assertion against the Defendants is without merit.

C. Judgment on the plaintiffs' preliminary assertion

(1) Legal reserve of inheritance is calculated by adding the value of donated property to the value of the property of the inheritee at the time of the commencement of inheritance. The person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance can only claim the return of the property against the inheritor whose value of the property donated among other co-inheritors exceeds his own legal reserve of inheritance to the extent that there is a shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance.

(2) However, when considering the overall purport of the argument in Eul's evidence Nos. 1-12 (including virtual numbers), it is recognized that the deceased donated the plaintiff's forced inheritance amounting to YG, the deceased's decedent, from 341-2, 345, 85-1, 360, 85-2, 85-2, and 201, to YG, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's heir, the deceased's decedent, the deceased's heir, the deceased's heir, the deceased's deceased's heir, and the deceased's inheritance amounting to 360, 85-1, 85-2, and 85-2, and 201, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.