1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the parent-child net C (the death of August 7, 1993) donated real estate recorded in the attached list to the defendant who is the plaintiff's birth, thereby infringing the plaintiff's right to forced inheritance.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the right to claim the return of legal reserve has expired ten years after the expiration of the ten-year statute of limitations.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant either accepted the debt or renounced the prescription benefit.

2. The right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance is extinguished by prescription after the lapse of ten years from the time the inheritance commenced (the latter part of Article 1117 of the Civil Act). Since the instant lawsuit was filed on February 6, 2017 after the lapse of ten years from August 7, 1993 when the deceased C was dead, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance expired after the lapse of ten years of extinctive prescription.

The Defendant approved the obligation to return the forced portion solely with the statement of evidence No. 1

It is insufficient to recognize that the creditor has renounced the prescription benefit or has renounced the prescription benefit, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit without examining whether the plaintiff's right to legal reserve of inheritance has been infringed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.