1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The network E and network F were legal couples, and G, the Defendant, the Plaintiffs, and H were children of the slish.

B. The net E acquired ownership of 139.8 square meters in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu around 1976, and was registered as a preservation of ownership around 1985, and around 2001.

From around that time, the Defendant had resided in the Republic of Korea with the deceased F (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) and had been supported by the Defendant, who is the south of the Republic of Korea, together with the instant real estate.

C. On February 22, 2002, the deceased E donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of the said donation on February 26, 2002, and thereafter, sent the female life from the instant real estate along with the deceased F, E was dead on May 6, 2006, and F was dead on November 21, 2010, respectively.

On the other hand, the Defendant sold the said real estate to J and K in KRW 840,00,000 on January 5, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of the said sale on February 25, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, 9 (including branch numbers for additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that there was no property received from the deceased E. The Defendant independently donated the instant real estate owned by the deceased E, thereby infringing on the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance.

In addition, the Plaintiffs knew of the fact that the instant real estate was donated to the Defendant. On November 26, 2015, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would dispose of the said real estate immediately to the GF H at the GF’s proposal. Around February 7, 2016, H provided that it was only known that it was intended to deliver that story to the Plaintiffs.

Thus, the defendant should return to the plaintiffs 2/30 shares of the real estate of this case (=2/15 shares of this case x 1/2) respectively.