1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 1945, the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) married with F, and formed the Plaintiffs and G with F on February 10, 194. On June 21, 1962, the Defendant was married with the Defendant, and maintained a H, I, J, K, L, M, and N as his children, and P and Q were born between P andO.

B. On March 30, 200, the Defendant purchased Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government S apartment T head (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the price of KRW 350 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 200.

C. The Deceased died on February 8, 2008.

Since then, F filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of marriage between the deceased and the defendant, and obtained the judgment of acceptance. This became final and conclusive around October 201.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the defendant purchased the apartment of this case with the money donated from the deceased, and since the above donation infringed upon the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to each of the plaintiffs' respective legal reserve of inheritance rates of KRW 443,449,99, which was converted into monetary value at the time of commencing the inheritance.

B. The evidence presented by the judgment alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received all or part of the purchase fund from the deceased at the time of the purchase of the apartment of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion premised on this is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.