1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and C, the Defendant’s father, died on March 16, 1993, and on February 17, 1978, the previous death, the Defendant donated D-gu Mangyeong-gu 261.5 square meters to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant donation”).

On February 20, 1978, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the donation of this case. 2) Since the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance was infringed due to the donation of this case, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the money stated in the claim with the return of legal reserve of inheritance.

B. In a case where the decedent donated property to his heir or to a third party before the legal reserve of inheritance was created and the ownership of the decedent transferred to the donee upon completion of the performance of the inheritance, even if inheritance commences after the predecessor died after the enforcement of the Civil Act amended by Act No. 3051 on December 31, 197 (Enforcement Date is January 1, 1979; hereinafter “Revised Civil Act”), the donated property is retroactively subject to a claim for refund by the legal reserve of inheritance system even if inheritance commences after the predecessor died.

This is because the provisions of the amended Civil Code are applied to donations whose performance has been completed before the enforcement of the amended Civil Code, it is limited or infringed by retroactive legislation, and it is contrary to the purport of Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the amended Civil Code.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da78722 Decided December 13, 2012) Even in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the registration of transfer based on the instant donation was completed prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, and thus, the instant real estate is not subject to the claim for return by the statutory reserve of inheritance.

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