Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 12, 2011

1. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the return of legal reserve of November 2, 2009 with respect to each share indicated in the “legal reserve of inheritance” column in the annexed list of inheritance relations among the forest land of 16,811 square meters in Namyang-si (number omitted) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Inheritance relationship;

(1) On August 12, 2009, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) died and succeeded to the deceased’s property in proportion to the same list as the children listed in the “heir” column in the annexed inheritance relations list.

(2) However, before the death of the deceased, Nonparty 2, 3, and 4 died as indicated in the “heir” column of the same list, and their wife or children, as indicated in the “heir heir” column of the same list, inherited their property by representation in proportion to the stated “the amount of inheritance by representation” column of the same list.

(b) Donations;

On June 12, 1991, the Defendant donated a forest land of 16,811 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) from the Deceased in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 191, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

(c) Inherited property;

The Deceased did not have active property or obligation at the time of his death.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1-3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the forest land of this case is included in the basic property for calculating legal reserve. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on November 2, 2009, when the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant with respect to each share in the "legal reserve" in the annexed inheritance list among the forest land of this case donated by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) Whether Article 1114 of the Civil Act is applied

According to Article 1114 of the Civil Act, the Defendant asserts that “the donation shall be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Article 1113 only for the donation performed for one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance.” The Defendant asserts that when the decedent donated the forest of this case to the Defendant, the forest of this case shall not be included in the forest of this case, which is the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, since it was before August 12, 2009, the date of death of the deceased.”

Therefore, Article 1118 of the Civil Code applies mutatis mutandis to the legal reserve of inheritance of the special beneficiary. Thus, Article 1118 of the Civil Code provides that Article 1008 of the Civil Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to the legal reserve of inheritance of the special beneficiary, in case where there is a person among the co-inheritors who has made a special benefit from the donation of the property from the inheritee, the provision of Article 1114 of the Civil Code shall be excluded. Therefore, the donation shall be included in the basic property for calculating legal reserve of inheritance regardless of whether it was made between one year before the commencement of the inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da11715 delivered on June 30, 199

(2) Whether the contributory portion is deducted

The defendant asserts that "the contributory portion should be deducted from the basic property of calculating the legal reserve of this case, because the defendant supported the deceased as the father of the defendant as the father of the non-party 2 or examined the rest of the non-party 2 except the non-party 2 as indicated in the "heir" column in the annexed inheritance list."

Therefore, in a case where there is a person, among co-inheritors, specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the inheritee’s property or specially supported by the inheritee, the calculation of the contributory portion shall be determined by an agreement among co-inheritors, and in a case where the agreement is not reached or it is impossible to reach an agreement, the Family Court shall decide upon the contributory portion as a trial upon the Contributor’s application. As such, prior to the determination of the contributory portion, the contributory portion in a lawsuit claiming the return of the forced portion cannot be asserted as a defense that the contributory portion should be deducted from the inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da8334, Oct. 14, 1994). The defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(3) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

The Defendant asserts that “The filing of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant is in violation of the good faith principle, even though Nonparty 2, the father of the Defendant, was divided into the deceased’s property at the time of his/her survival, the Plaintiffs’ children listed in the “heir” column in the attached inheritance list.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts, and the defendant's above assertion is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Succession List omitted]

Judges Jeong-young