1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of damages from the tort claim against the Defendant and C, and sought restitution of the reserve of inheritance from the conjunctive claim. The first instance court dismissed each primary claim and partly accepted each conjunctive claim.

As a result, the Defendant appealed against the part of the claim for the return of legal reserve, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim for the return of legal reserve accepted as above against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court explained that the Defendant was donated KRW 95 million and C, but at the time of July 18, 2012, the Defendant was in custody of KRW 45 million and C was only in custody of KRW 90 million.

In the first instance trial, the Defendant alleged that the sum of the donations received by the Defendant and C was KRW 135 million, or that the Plaintiff invoked it, and thus, the Defendant did not establish a judicial confession. After that, the Defendant revoked the previous statement from the legal brief dated August 10, 2015, by asserting that from the legal brief dated August 10, 2015, the sum of KRW 50 million (the Saemaul Depository), KRW C27 million (the part, etc. of the money deposited by G from the agricultural bank passbook on May 30, 2012), and KRW 97 million (the part, etc. of the money deposited by G from the agricultural bank passbook), the previous statement should be removed from the legal document.

Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confession during the trial, thereby finding erroneous facts and rendering judgment.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 20 million as a honorarium to G who managed the deceased’s property according to the deceased’s meaning. This constitutes performance of the inheritance obligation. Since the Defendant assumed the hospital treatment expenses, funeral expenses, and class 49 expenses with the property donated to the deceased, the amount equivalent to such expenses shall be deducted from the Defendant’s inheritance property. The first instance judgment erroneously appropriated the basic property for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance.

3. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the first instance is as follows.