1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On the basis of the selective claims added at the trial, the deceased K on December 4, 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased K (the deceased on March 18, 2014, hereinafter “the deceased”) married with the deceased L (the deceased on September 29, 1993) who is a spouse, five children, including the Plaintiff, Defendant B, D and C, and the deceased M (the deceased on July 5, 1994).

E is the spouse of the network M, and F and G are children of the network M.

H and I are the Plaintiff’s children.

B. At the time of death, the Deceased owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. On December 4, 2008, the deceased inherited 1/2 of the entire property of the deceased to the plaintiff, and the remaining 1/2 shall be divided into Defendant D, B, C, F, H, I, I, and J, and 20% shall be added to Defendant D. However, the real estate of this case is inherited by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff prepares a will letter to the effect that the plaintiff would sell the leased income generated from the real estate of this case and the purchase price in the case of selling the real estate of this case in installments to Defendant D, B, C, F, H, I, and J, and signed and sealed the date of preparation, address, name.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant will”). D.

On March 5, 2009, the Deceased confirmed that a notary public was the principal’s signature and seal on the deceased’s above testament in the new village of a law firm, and obtained a certificate signed by a private person.

E. On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Family Court for the approval seal on the instant testament, and on the date of the testament inspection conducted on July 11, 2014, Defendant B stated that it is not a penology of the deceased among the testament of this case. Defendant D accepted only the first head of the instant testament of this case and the fourth head, and stated that the remainder cannot be recognized as not a penology of the deceased.

F. Meanwhile, in preparing the instant testament, the Deceased had the Plaintiff process the deceased’s will, such as managing and distributing the instant real estate based on the deceased’s will.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 6 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), respectively;