1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on March 7, 2004. The inheritor is the Plaintiff B, C, Defendant, and F, the spouse, and the Plaintiff’s share in the inheritance of the Plaintiff A is 3/11, the Plaintiff B, C, Defendant, and F are 2/11, respectively.

B. At the time of the death, the Deceased owned the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), and each land listed in the separate sheet collectively referred to as “each of the instant land”), G, Hanam-si, Hanam-si, and one lot of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), the new bank deposit, the bank deposit, and the insurance claim’s active property, and there was no small property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 13, 14, and 18 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that when there is a shortage in the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance due to the deceased's donation or testamentary gift to the defendant as the deceased's heir, the defendant can claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance to the extent of the shortage. Since each of the land of this case was donated or testamentary gift to the defendant, there is a shortage in the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance due to the donation or testamentary gift to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to transfer the registration of transfer to the plaintiff Eul with respect to the share of 3/22 (3/11 of the above plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance x 1/2 of the shares among each of the land of this case, 1/11 of the above plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance ratio

B. As to the above argument by the plaintiffs as to whether each of the lands of this case is subject to the return of legal reserve of inheritance, the defendant alleged that each of the lands of this case is the original property owned by the defendant since the defendant was awarded a successful bid under the name of the deceased and thus, it does not constitute the subject

Therefore, it is therefore.