1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, with the exception of adding the following “2. Additional Determination” to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the same Act.

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court's judgment.

Paragraph 1, “However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of denial or existence of paternity against D and decided on June 12, 2019 to confirm that there was no parental relation between the deceased L and D, the deceased’s spouse (The Daegu Family Court Decision 2018Ddan5852, and the reasoning of the judgment). The deceased’s husband and wife was at the same age as the deceased’s married couple’s married couple’s married couple’s married couple, and the deceased’s parents were also in the same place as the deceased’s siblings. As such, the deceased’s husband and wife was at the time of the Defendant’s marriage, around 1984, which caused D’s use of D’s family register on the registry [based on recognition] of the first instance judgment of “A’s additional statement as stipulated in subparagraphs 12 and 13 of A’s No. 12 and 13”, and both the Plaintiff’s assertion that H Apartment apartment I owned by the deceased were sold at KRW 50,700,00.

The above apartment standard is 78 million won as of March 8, 2016, which is the death date of the deceased.

② The Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance by withdrawing KRW 500,800 from the Deceased’s account on March 10, 2016, the amount of KRW 96,043,30,000, out of the property owned by the Deceased’s Daegu Bank Account, which was deposited out of KRW 96,043,30.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone brought the property from 1 to 3 on the deceased’s possession, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that there is a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.