beta
Text
1. On February 13, 2019, Defendant F: (a) KRW 2,945,054 for each of the plaintiffs; (b) KRW 6,131,868 for Defendant E; and (c) each of the above amounts for each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. In the absence of dispute, the fact that the non-party network G (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on April 3, 2018 and succeeded to by Defendant E and Defendant F, the wife, and the fact that the wife succeeded to is no dispute between the parties.
2. Determination on the scope of basic property
A. The plaintiffs asserted that there is no inherited property at the time of the deceased's death, and that the deceased's donation to Defendant F to Defendant F, KRW 40,610,165, and KRW 50,000,000,000 and KRW 932,000,000,000 and KRW 1911,00,000,000,000,000,000 won for regular payments in the name of Defendant F, and KRW 50,000,000,000,000 won for regular payments in the name of Defendant E, and KRW 78,00,000,000,000 and KRW 1911,00,000,00,000 shall be included in the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance.
B. There is no dispute between the parties who did not exist any particular inherited property at the time of the deceased’s death of inherited property.
C. (1) In determining the Defendants’ special profits, Defendant F purchased 40,000 square meters of the I farm compensation of KRW 1.30,357,517, which was deposited in the deceased’s account, and KRW 453 square meters of the Y-gun in the Chungcheongnam-nam Budget-gun and the 348 square meters of the above ground-based single-story factory, there is no dispute between the parties. In light of the above fact of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant F received KRW 40,00 from the deceased, barring any special circumstance.
As to this, Defendant F is the actual operator of Defendant E’s I farm, the acceptance compensation is alleged to be Defendant E, but the submission of the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize Defendant E as the actual operator of the I farm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Next, Defendant F asserted that Defendant F was donated not by Defendant F but by Defendant F to Defendant F, but by Defendant F, but by the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone.