1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and each selective claim added by this court are dismissed.

2. Appeal;

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is partially determined as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiffs added the judgment regarding the selective claims added by this court. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The second Twelve (12) of the judgment of the court of first instance is to convert “the instant real estate” into “the instant land”.

B. The 2nd 18th, 19th and 4th 1st 1st son of the judgment of the first instance shall be conducted by cutting “Plaintiffs” into “Plaintiffs.”

C. The third 19th 19th 10, and 20th 20th 20th 20 as follows.

【4) Therefore, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land before subdivision cannot be deemed null and void, the plaintiffs' assertion that the land in this case constitutes inherited property is without merit.

Even if the land of this case constitutes inherited property, the fact that the plaintiffs reported and accepted the renunciation of inheritance to the Suwon District Court after the death of the deceased does not conflict between the parties, and thus, each of the above arguments by the plaintiffs on the premise that they have inheritance rights are without merit.

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the above renunciation of inheritance constitutes a declaration of intent by coercion or inducement of the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). Meanwhile, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant agreed to pay part of the price of the land in this case or the price of the land in this case after the death of the deceased. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Determination as to selective claims

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the defendant donated or succeeded to the land before division from the deceased and infringed on the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance.

Therefore, the defendant shall return to the plaintiffs about 500 of the land of this case on the basis of their return of legal reserve of inheritance.