1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim for change or expansion in the trial, concerning the plaintiffs' forced to return legal reserve.

1. In relation to the real estate as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 at the court of first instance, the Plaintiffs sought the return of the legal reserve of inheritance as a preliminary return on the premise that the legacy against the Defendant is null and void, and the Plaintiff B sought the return of unjust enrichment in relation to the real estate as stated in the separate sheet No. 2.

The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims on real estate in attached Form 1, and partly accepted the plaintiff B's claim for return of unjust enrichment on real estate in attached Form 2.

In this regard, the plaintiffs filed an appeal on the main and ancillary claims regarding the real estate stated in attached Form 1, and withdraw an appeal on the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was the main claim, and claim the part of the claim for the return of the reserve of inheritance as the return of the value for which the preliminary claim was filed.

As stated in the paragraph, the claim was modified to the primary claim, expanded the claim, and added the claim for the return of the original claim to the preliminary claim.

On the other hand, the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the part against the Defendant out of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff B.

Therefore, the subject of this Court's adjudication is the part of the plaintiffs' claim of forced inheritance and the part of the plaintiff B's claim of unjust enrichment.

2. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the 3rd written judgment of the first instance court “8” is dismissed as “9”; and (b) the 16th written “witness” is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiffs' claim for restitution of forced inheritance

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion infringed on the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance, who are co-inheritors by receiving the land of this case from E.

Accordingly, it is around.