1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, according to the argument that the plaintiffs supplement in the trial of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of this Court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The following judgments shall be added between the 5th sentence of the first instance and the 20th sentence:

In other words, in full view of the following circumstances, the records of this case and the evidence mentioned above and the evidence mentioned in Eul evidence No. 3, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' preliminary claims are merely different in the method of resolution in the same life as the original claims or in the dispute over the same economic interest.

① The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on November 27, 2017.

The plaintiffs' primary claim is that "the defendant, when the deceased had his capacity to perform his duties, has obtained unjust enrichment by disposing of the shares of this case owned by the deceased without permission, and thus, has the duty to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased."

② On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff, the heir of the deceased, including the Defendant, G, H, and I, who continues the instant lawsuit at the first instance trial, agreed on the division of inherited property.

③ After the agreement on the division of inherited property, the Plaintiffs added the conjunctive claim.

Preliminary claim by the plaintiffs is that since the inherited property acquired by the plaintiffs through the division of the above inherited property does not reach the amount of each secured portion of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs exercise their right to claim the return of the secured portion against the defendant who received the shares sold in

④ Therefore, the legal reserve of inheritance was infringed upon with the agreement on the division of the primary claim (the deceased's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment) and the conjunctive claim. Accordingly, the legal reserve of inheritance against the sales shares of this case was infringed upon due to the effect that the plaintiffs exercised their right to restitution of legal reserve of inheritance.