beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of the claim for the return of the legal reserve of the plaintiff A, C, and the plaintiff B is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.
Reasons
1. As to the ground of appeal on the part of the plaintiffs' claim for restitution
A. The Civil Act recognizes the legal reserve of inheritance in Articles 1112 through 1118 and provides for the method of returning the legal reserve of inheritance, but does not provide for the method of returning the legal reserve of inheritance.
However, in light of the fact that Article 1115(1) provides that "the person liable to return the property may claim the return of the property within the extent of shortage," the person liable to return the property subject to the gift or legacy shall normally return the property itself, but if it is impossible to return the original property, the amount equivalent to the value shall be returned.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42624, 42631, Mar. 14, 2013).
The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land due to legacy on April 17, 2013, and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 23, 2013 with respect to each of their own 6.7 shares among the instant land on the ground of donation to L and M, who are their children, and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 6, 199 of the instant land, and the Defendant shared the shares of 185.6/199 of the instant land on December 22, 2005, and thereafter registered the seizure of ownership with respect to the Defendant’s co-ownership of the instant land on December 29, 2015, by the Republic of Korea as to the Defendant’s co-ownership on the instant land.
Then, the lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiffs could seek a refund of the shortage of legal reserve by the method of return of the value, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, on the following grounds: (a) the head of Suwon City, etc. completed the registration of seizure and the Defendant, who is the duty to return the instant land, may not be deemed to have transferred the
C. However, the records are recorded.