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. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) add "the facts divided" under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance under the second part of the judgment; (b) add "the total of the divided P or W, M, X,Y, Z, and N land" (hereinafter referred to as "the land in dispute in this case"); (c) add "the time limit" under the third 5th part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "a recognition"; and (d) add "the time limit" to the defendant's argument added in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the further determination as described in paragraph (2) below, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The argument that there is another special beneficiary of the claim 1) The Network E had children G, H, I, and J with the deceased AC, and married with the deceased AD after the death of the network AC, and had children as well as the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the K. The network E had any property other than the dispute land in this case, but such other property was donated to the defendant's double-presidential system before the life of the network E. Therefore, other special beneficiaries among the deceased E's co-inheritors, i.e., the property donated to the defendant's double-presidential system, should also be included in the property that serves as the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance. 2) The fact-finding inquiry conducted on July 28, 2016 at the court of the trial on the trial, that there was other property than the dispute in this case to the deceased E in addition to the land in this case, and there is no lack of evidence to acknowledge the fact that such property was donated to the defendant's double-presidential system.

B. 1) The claim for the transfer registration of ownership on the land in dispute of this case arising from the exercise of the claim for the return of forced portions by the summary of the claim was made retroactively on March 13, 1995, and the statute of limitations expired on March 13, 2005, which was the date ten years have passed thereafter. 2).