1. On April 21, 2017, the Seoul Western District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2003, the Plaintiff and the network E succeeded to Defendant C and D, the wife, to Defendant B and their children.

B. The Plaintiff and the deceased E’s mother completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land indicated in the separate sheet on May 10, 1984 on the ground of sale and purchase on May 10, 1984, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on such ground building (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate after combining the above land and buildings”) on May 20, 1985.

C. On January 30, 2012, F drafted a testamentary book to the effect that the instant real estate was donated to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant testamentary book”), and subsequently died on October 9, 2016.

The Defendants completed inheritance registration on April 21, 2017 with respect to 1/2 shares in the instant real estate (Defendant B3/14, Defendant C, and Defendant D, respectively 2/14) as a substitute heir on April 21, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's mother F, the summary of the plaintiff's assertion, bequeathed the real estate of this case to the plaintiff. The registration of inheritance of the defendants' shares among the real estate of this case must be cancelled as the registration of invalidation

In addition, the network E has already been donated from the F to the G Apartment H (hereinafter “the Defendants’ real property of this case”) in order to make a special profit. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff owned the instant real property solely according to the instant legacy, it does not infringe the Defendants’ legal reserve rights.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that: (a) the instant will will of this case and a testamentary gift based thereon are invalid, since it is not entirely known whether the networkF was prepared, or whether the networkF was prepared by free will.

Even if the testamentary gift of this case is valid, the Defendants were the heir of the deceased F in lieu of the order of the deceased deceased E before the commencement of the inheritance, so the testamentary gift of this case is null and void to the extent that it infringes on the Defendants’ legal reserve of inheritance.