(영문) 서울고등법원 2010.11.17.선고 2008나98220 판결

6. From September 9 to September 19, 2008, 5% per annum; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 28, 472, and 775 won per annum from June 9, 2007 to November 17, 2010; 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 112, 353,07 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 16,321, and 309 won per annum from September 20, 2007 to the date of full payment; and

9. 19. 까지는 연 5 %, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의, 96, 031, 698원에 대하여는 2007. 9. 20. 부터 2010. 11. 17. 까지는 연 5 %, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의 각 비율에 의한 금원을, 선정자 윤▼▼에게 64, 055, 939원 및 그 중 16, 321, 309원에 대하여는 2007. 9. 20. 부터 2008. 9. 19. 까지는 연 5 %, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의, 47, 734, 630원에 대하여는 2007. 9. 20 .

From November 17, 2010, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Plaintiff ○○ and Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s remainder of the primary claim and the remainder of the conjunctive claim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation cost, 70% of the 70% of the total litigation cost is borne by the Plaintiff ○○ and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder, respectively, by the Defendant.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

Defendant: 255,205,000 won and 2007 Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Gaz.

8929 Of course, from the date of delivery of a copy of the request for modification of the purport and cause of the claim in the case No. 8929

amount of 20% per annum; 223, 610, 025 won per annum; 20% per annum; leaps; 223, 610, 025 won per annum; and

윤▼▼에게 172, 852, 025원 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 서울동부지방법원 2007가합13129

Amount of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in a case to the day of complete payment.

Each payment made by Plaintiffs ○○○ and Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are primarily claims for recovery of inheritance;

Preliminaryly, the claim for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance is sought for each of the above amounts.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff ○○, Plaintiff 1 (Appointed Party) .

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Plaintiff ○, and Plaintiff (Selection) who are equivalent to the money ordered to pay below

The parties concerned shall revoke their part of the loss of leap.

Defendant 179, 615, 488 won to Plaintiff ○○, and Plaintiff 99, 615, 488

원, 선정자 윤▼▼에게 99, 615, 488원 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 소장 부본 송달 다음날부

J. D. 20% interest per annum until the date of full payment.

B. Defendant

In the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant, the part of the judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff leap ○, which is equivalent

The plaintiff (designated party)'s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

정○○ ( 이하 ' 망인 ' 이라 한다 ) 가 2002. 12. 21. 사망하였는데, 망인의 자녀들인 원고 윤○○, 원고 ( 선정당사자, 이하 ' 원고 ' 라 한다 ) 윤, 선정자 윤▼▼ ( 이하 ' 선정자 ' 라한다 ) 및 피고가 망인의 공동상속인인 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다 .

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

The plaintiffs asserted as follows with the primary claim and the conjunctive claim (Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Gahap13219, which was brought by the plaintiff leap, on June 13, 2008, the first day of pleading of the court of first instance, which was brought by the plaintiff leap○○ on June 13, 2008, joined the case of 2007Gahap8929, which was brought by the plaintiff leap○○○ on the third day of pleading of the court of first instance, and on July 25, 2008, the plaintiff leap has invoked the claim asserted by the plaintiff leap○○○○ on the third day of pleading of the court of first instance, and therefore, the plaintiff apap is partly inconsistent with

his argument shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

A. At the time of the deceased’s death, the inherited property as well as the Defendant’s disposal (1)’s inherited property at the time of the deceased’s death. The aggregate of the sale prices of the deceased’s deposits in the name of ○○○○○ apartment building, OOOO2 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), 61,00,000, 00, 10 lots of land listed in the attached Table 1 list, 3 lots of land listed in the attached Table 4, 00, 000, 100 won, 00 won, 80 won, 00 won, 00 won, 80 won, 00 won, 108 won, 108 won, 100 won, 90 won, 108 won, 109 won, 109 won, 100 won, 309 won, 400 won, 190 won, 90 won, 1008 won, 190 won, 300.

(2) However, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the inherited property to a third party or did not receive the donation from the deceased, but completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of donation. Of the inherited property, the Defendant disposed of the deceased’s inherited property by voluntarily withdrawing the deposit and consuming it.

B. At the time of the deceased’s death, the Defendant, at the time of Gwangju-si ○○○○○○○○○, 721 square meters, bears the burden of selling ten parcels to a third party, such as capital gains tax and inheritance tax, etc. due to the death of the deceased, is KRW 400 million.

C. The Plaintiffs, the designated parties, and the Defendant agreed on the division of inherited property (1) with the content that the Plaintiffs, and the designated parties shall own ○○○○○○○○○, 250 square meters, and two lots outside of 250 square meters in Gwangju-si, the Plaintiff ○○○○, ○○○, and one parcel outside 416 meters in Gwangju-si, and the designated parties shall own ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, and 845 square meters, respectively.

(2) The sum of the value of ○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ 250 square meters and two parcels, owned by Plaintiff ○○○, in Gwangju-si, is KRW 97,292,00. The sum of the value of ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○16 square meters and one parcel, the sum of the value of 110,637,000 square meters and one parcel, owned by Plaintiff ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 00,00 won.

D. Of KRW 1,409,98,00, the deceased's total inherited property of KRW 1,809,98,988,00, the amount indicated in each of the claims after deducting the value of each of the above real property acquired by the plaintiffs and the designated parties through an agreement on the division of inherited property from KRW 352,49,97,00,00 corresponding to the statutory inherited property of the plaintiffs and the selected parties ( = 1,409,98,98,000 x 1/4). In the first place, the defendant violated the inheritance recovery claim, and the conjunctively, the claim for the return of inherited property by the method of return is sought as the cause of each claim, in case where the donation of the above inherited property is recognized.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. At the time of the death of the deceased, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 and each of the deposit claims listed in the separate sheet No. 3 were found in the fact that the defendant infringed on the plaintiffs and the selected persons' share of inheritance (1) was recognized.

(B) On June 19, 203, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, as to the above inherited property, the plaintiffs, the designated parties, and the defendant entered each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 8, 9, and 10 on June 19, 2003, the plaintiff YOO entered each real estate listed in the same list No. 1, 7 on the same list No. 1, the designated parties, and the defendant agreed to own each real estate listed in the same list No. 6 on June 21, 2003 on June 21, 2003; and

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 24, the result of the market price appraisal by the appraiser No. 1 of the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings (the evidence of plaintiff No. 2007Gahap13129, Seoul Eastern District Court 207Gahap13129) was investigated as documentary evidence in the above court No. 2007Gahap8929, and this evidence was investigated as a special evidence in this case.

Unless there are special circumstances, the above court 2007Gahap8929 was examined only by documentary evidence in the case No. 2007Gahap8929).

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay as inheritance recovery the plaintiffs and the designated parties the amount equivalent to the inheritance shares of the plaintiffs and the designated parties among the total amount of KRW 65,285,238, 16,321,309 ( = 65,285, 238 won: 4, and 238 won; hereinafter the same shall apply) and delay damages for each of the above amounts.

(3) In addition to the above inherited property, the plaintiffs argued to the effect that in addition to the above inherited property, the apartment of this case, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, 721 square meters, total sale price of ten parcels, 661,00,000 won, three parcels of land listed in the attached Table 4, and three parcels of land listed in the attached Table 4, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, and KRW 72,897,100, 100, all of 72,897, and 100, shall be subject to a claim for inheritance recovery as inherited property of the deceased. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above property is inherited property, and instead, as seen below, the above claims that the sale price of the apartment of this case, ○○○○○○, 100,000, and KRW 661,000,000, and KRW 43 and KRW 0○○○○○○,1378 meters.

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition.

4. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

(a) Method of calculating shortage in legal reserve of inheritance;

The shortage in legal reserve of inheritance may be calculated by the following methods:

D - Shortage in the legal reserve = [The amount of property (A) x the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance - The amount of special benefit of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance (B) - The amount of the pertinent legal reserve of inheritance (C) - The amount of net benefit of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance (D)

A = active inherited property + Amount of donation - Amount of inheritance obligation

B = 1/2C for lineal descendants of an inheritee, the amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance = The amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance + the amount of inheritance on the legal reserve of inheritance

D = The amount of property acquired by inheritance with the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance - The amount of inheritance debts contributions.

(b) The amount of property that forms the basis for calculating the legal reserve of inheritance (A);

Legal reserve of inheritance shall be calculated by adding the value of the property owned by the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance to the value of the property, deducting the total amount of the inheritance debts. The next is to examine the property included in the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance.

(1) At the time of commencement of the inheritance, each real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the deceased’s active inherited property (A) is KRW 596,971,00 in total ( = KRW 498,050,00 in Schedule 1 + KRW 98,921,00 in Table 2 + KRW 98,921,00 in total). (b) The aggregate amount of the value of the deceased’s active inherited property at the time of commencement of the inheritance is KRW 65,285,238 in addition to Table 3. (c) As such, the aggregate amount of the value of the deceased’s active inherited property at the time of commencement of the inheritance is KRW 662,256,238 (=596,971,000 +65,285,238).

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 24, and the market price appraisal by the appraiser ○○○○ in the first instance trial, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (2) the deceased’s donation to the defendant and the defendant’s children (A) the deceased’s donation to the defendant was made to the defendant, and the deceased’s donation to the defendant listed in Table No. 4 No. 1 attached hereto; and (3) the value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance is the aggregate of KRW 129,16

(B) On July 20, 1998, the deceased donated the purchase price to the defendant at around 179,00,00 won at the time of the purchase of the apartment from around 20, 1998. The amount is KRW 179,00 (No. 15, No. 22, No. 24, and No. 29, and No. 33, there is sufficient room to deem that the deceased trusted the apartment to the defendant. However, even if the deceased trusted the apartment to the defendant, according to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, if the title truster and the title trustee entered into the so-called contract title trust agreement, and the title trustee entered into the sale agreement with the owner without knowledge that the apartment was a title trust agreement and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment property under the name of the title truster and the title trustee, the title truster would be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the real estate in question under the name of the title truster and the title trustee.

Considering the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the deceased tried to recover the title of ownership of the apartment in this case from the defendant before his birth, or that the deceased demanded the defendant to return a considerable amount of the purchase price of the apartment in this case, it is recognized that the deceased donated the purchase price of the apartment in this case to the defendant rather than nominal trust. However, in light of all the above circumstances, the deceased did not recognize a title trust agreement between the deceased and the defendant for the above reasons, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased was not a 60 million won recognized by the defendant, but a full donation of the purchase price is made to the defendant).

2) The scope of return of legal reserve of inheritance is calculated on the basis of the amount of legal reserve of inheritance calculated by multiplying the amount of the property received by the claimant for legal reserve of inheritance by the ratio of legal reserve of inheritance, and in calculating the amount of legal reserve of inheritance, the market value of the property received by the claimant for legal reserve of inheritance shall be calculated at the time of the commencement of inheritance. Therefore, if the donated property is money, it is reasonable to view the donated property as the value of the donated property by converting it into the monetary value at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and it is reasonable to calculate it by reflecting the price fluctuation rate between the donation and the time of the commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28126, Jul. 23, 2009).

Inasmuch as it is reasonable to use GDP displays, which seems to best reflect the fluctuation in the price level of the entire economy, the monetary value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of the purchase-price donated by the Defendant, is calculated as the GDP displays numerical value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of the purchase-price donated by the Defendant, as at the time of the death of X-X (hereinafter referred to as the "calculated formula of this case").

On the other hand, the time of donation shall be calculated on August 26, 1998 by the defendant, which completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the apartment of this case.

If the purchase price of the apartment of this case, which the deceased donated to the defendant, is calculated in accordance with the accounting formula of this case, 191, 771, and 001 won ( = 179,00,000,000 x 93.1 (hereinafter 2002)/ 86.9 (GP dp d d d d d d d d d d 1, 1998)).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, Gap evidence Nos. 22 through 24, Gap evidence Nos. 29, 33, Gap evidence No. 34-1, 2, and 4, and the market price appraisal result by the appraiser No. 1 of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings (C) the disposition price for disposal of ten lots outside of 00 ○○○○○○○○ 721m2, which the deceased donated to the defendant in Gwangju City.

1 ) 갑 제2, 14호증, 갑 제21호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제10호증의 1 내지 9의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 망인은 2001. 7. 1. 경부터 2002. 10. 10. 경까지 사이에 망인 소유의 광주시 ○○면 ○리 ○○○ 대 721m 외 10필지의 처분권한을 피고 또는 피고의 남편 강○○에게 위임하였고, 피고나 강○○은 위 각 부동산을 이○○, 이, 이▲▲, 이▼▼, 공○○, 구○○, 이●● 등에게 각 매도한 사실, 위 각 매도로 인한 대금 중 이▲▲이 2001. 7. 10. 망인의 광주농협 계좌에 입급한 4, 580만 원이 당일 인출되어 그 중 3, 500만 원이 그 다음날 피고의 국민은행 계좌로 입금되었고, 망인의 위 계좌에 2001. 7. 24. 이▼▼이 입금한 6, 665만 원 및 공○○가 입금한 4, 000만 원 , 2001. 7. 25. 길○○이 입금한 3, 510만 원 등 합계 1억 4, 175만 원이 2001. 7. 26. 인출되어 피고의 위 계좌로 입금되었으며, 구○○이 2001. 8. 16. 망인의 위 계좌에 입금한 4, 130만 원은 그 다음날 인출되어 2001. 8. 18. 피고의 위 계좌에 입금되었고, 이※※이 2002. 1. 23. 망인의 위 계좌에 입금한 3, 500만 원은 2002. 2. 9. 인출되어 피고의 위 계좌에 입금되었으며, 이●●이 2002. 10. 25. 망인의 위 계좌에 입금한 8, 950만 원은 2002. 10. 28. 인출되어 그 다음날 피고의 위 계좌에 입금된 사실, 2002. 10. 24. 위 이리 ○○○ - ○, ○○○ 2필지의 매매대금으로 추정되는 137, 500, 000원이 피고의 위 계좌로 바로 입금된 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 피고는 위와 같이 피고의 계좌로 입금된 위 각 매매대금을 망인에게 지급하지 않았던 것으로 보이고, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고가 위 금원 중 일부를 양도소득세 등으로 사용한 점 등에 비추어 위 매매대금은 피고가 망인으로부터 증여받았다고 봄이 상당하다 한편, 갑 제14호증, 을 제10호증의 1 내지 9의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고 또는 강○○이 망인으로부터 처분권한을 위임받아 처분한 위 각 부동산 중 광주시 ○○면 ○리 ○○○ - ○ 대 427㎡, 같은 리 ○○○ - ○ 대 256m에 관한 매매계약서가 서증으로 제출되어 있지 않고, 같은 리 ○○○ - ○○ 대 373m에 관한 매매계약서에 기재된 매매대금을 알아보기 어려운 사실을 인정할 수는 있으나, 광주시 ○○면 ○리 ○○○ 대 721 외 10필지를 처분한 대금의 합계가 661, 000, 000원이라는 원고들의 주장에 대하여, 피고가 증여로 인정될 경우를 전제로 하여 위 금액에서 아래에서 보는 항목의 공제를 주장하고 있으므로, 일응 위 금액을 증여가액으로 인정한다 . 2 ) 이에 대하여 피고는 아래 각 금원은 증여금액을 산정함에 있어서 공제되어야 한다고 주장한다 .가 ) 피고는 먼저, 피고와 망인, 원고 윤, 선정자는 서울 ○구 ○○동 이○○ - ○ 토지 및 그 지상 건물에 대하여 공유 지분을 가지고 있었는데, 위 각 부동산을 공유하고 있던 다른 4촌 형제들이 차임 상당의 부당이득반환청구를 하였고, 위 소송에서 피고 등이 패소하여 망인은 4촌 형제들이 내세운 김※※에게 위 ○○동 ○○○○ 토지 및 건물에 관한 망인 및 피고의 공유 지분을 넘겨줌과 동시에 피고 소유의 이 사건 아파트를 담보로 주식회사 국민은행으로부터 120, 000, 00원을 대출받아 그 중 1억 원을 지급하고 사촌형제들과의 위 분쟁을 해결하였으며, 위 토지 처분대금 661, 000, 000원 중에서 위 대출금을 변제한 것이므로 증여금액을 산정함에 있어 위 1억 원은 공제되어야 한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 을 제18호증, 을 제19호증의 1, 2, 을 제20, 21호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고가 1999. 7. 16. 경 이 사건 아파트에 근저당권을 설정하고 주식회사 국민은행으로부터 120, 000, 00원을 대출받은 사실, 망인은 1999 .

8. 경 김※※과 사이에 위 ○○동 ○○○ - ○ 토지 및 건물 관련 서울지방법원 94가합 10100242호 재판상 채권채무와 관련하여 원고 윤, 선정자, 피고 및 망인의 채무에 관하여 1999. 8. 24. 김※※에게 1억 원을 지급하고, 김※※은 추후 모든 채권을 포기하기로 하는 내용의 합의를 한 사실, 그 후 위 합의에 따라 김※※에게 1억 원이 지급된 사실, 피고가 2001. 7. 27. 경 주식회사 국민은행에 위 대출금을 변제한 사실은 인정되나, 나아가 망인이 위 대출금 중에서 김※※에게 1억 원 ( 망인의 채무는 그 중 일부에 불과하다 ) 을 지급하였다거나 피고가 위 토지 처분대금 661, 000, 000원 중에서 위 대출금을 변제하였음을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 .

B) Next, the Defendant: (a) on August 26, 1999, KRW 280,000,000 for the deceased’s living expenses; and (b) on September 28, 199.

10. 26.5 million won, 7.6 million won on Jan. 29, 2000, and 2 million won on Feb. 25, 2000, and 1100,00 won on Feb. 11, 200, and 4.

16. 3 million won, 3 million won on April 19, 2001, and 19,480,000 won on June 30, 2001, the above money should be deducted in calculating the donation amount. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid each of the above money at the deceased's living expenses, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

C) In addition, the defendant alleged that the above 182, 368, 270 won, including transfer income tax and inheritance tax, which occurred after the deceased's death, and 15,830,00 won including registration tax, etc., should be deducted in calculating the donation amount. Thus, considering the purport of the arguments as to the above 22-2, Eul evidence 23-1, and Eul evidence 23-2, the defendant's assertion that the above 361,00 won should be deducted from the above 182, 368, 270 won including the above 30,000 won, and the above 60,000 won should not be deducted from the total amount of 60,000 won, 206, 300,000 won including the above 60,000 won, 306,000 won, 200,000 won, 206,000 won, 208.

3) Accordingly, the proceeds from the disposal of land donated by the deceased to the defendant shall be 588,89,690 won ( = 661,00,000 won - 72,10,310 won). (D) Land compensation for ○○ Dong-dong, Seoul, ○○○○, - 13.5 meters - which the deceased donated to the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 25, the following facts are divided into: around April 2001, 201: ○○○○○○○ Dong, 000 - 00,000 large 13.5 square meters; ○○○○ Dong, 427.5 square meters; ○○○○○ Dong, Seoul ○○○ Dong - ○○○○○ - 13.5 meters large 13.5 meters.

The deceased was holding 756/170 of the share of 756/170, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○-gu acquired the share of the deceased by consultation from the deceased, and on January 24, 2002, 72, 091, 660 won, and 31 January 31, 2002.

805 and 440 won have been remitted to a bank account in the name of the defendant (○○○○○○ - ○○○ - ○○○○○ -). However, the defendant may recognize that he did not pay each of the above money that he received to the deceased.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received the gift from the deceased in aggregate of KRW 72,897,100 ( = 72,091, 660 + 805, 440).

망인이 피고에게 증여한 위 토지 보상금 72, 897, 100원을 이 사건 계산공식에 따라 계산하면 72, 897, 100원 ( = 72, 897, 100원 × 93. 1 ( 2002년도 GDP 디플레이터수치 ) / 93. 1 ( 2002년도 GDP 디플레이터수치 ) 이 된다 . ( 마 ) 망인이 피고의 아들에게 증여한 부동산을 제34호증의 1의 기재와 제1심 감정인 표○○의 시가감정결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 망인은 피고의 아들인 강, 강▲▲에게 별지 제4목록 표2 기재 각 부동산을 증여하였는데, 상속개시 당시의 가액은 각 20, 938, 666원이다 . ( 바 ) 피고의 주장에 대한 판단

1 ) 피고는 먼저, 망인이 피고 또는 피고의 남편 강○○을 통하여 처분한 광주시 ○○면 ○리 ○○○ 대 721 외 10필지의 매매대금은 망인 명의의 예금계좌로 입금되었는데 망인은 위 금원을 망인의 생활비, 병원비 등으로 사용하였고, 일부는 위 ( 1 ) 의 ( 나 ) 항 기재 예금으로 남아 있었으므로, 피고가 위 매매대금 합계 661, 000, 000원을 증여받은 것이 아니라는 취지로 주장하나, 갑 제2호증, 갑 제21호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제11호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 , 광주시 ○○면 ○리 ○○○ 대 721m² 외 10필지를 매수한 각 매수인들은 망인 명의의 농협 예금계좌 ( OOO000 - 00 - 000000 ) 로 매매대금 중 일부를 입금하였는데 , 피고가 망인 명의의 위 예금계좌에서 이를 인출한 점, 피고가 위와 같이 인출한 매매대금을 망인의 생활비나 병원비 등 망인을 위하여 사용하였다거나, 위 예금으로 입금하였음을 인정할 증거가 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 . 2 ) 피고는 다음으로, 위 4촌 형제들과의 소송에서 피고 등이 패소하여 망인은 4촌 형제들이 내세운 김※※에게 위 ○○동 ○○○ - ○ 토지 및 건물에 관한 망인 및 피고의 공유 지분을 넘겨줌과 동시에 위 대출금 중 1억 원을 지급하고 사촌형제들과의 위 분쟁을 해결하였는데, 망인이 그에 대한 대가로 별지 제4목록 표1 기재 각 부동산을 피고에게 증여한 것이므로, 형식적으로는 망인이 피고에게 위 각 부동산을 증여한 것이지만 실질적으로는 망인이 피고에게 위 각 부동산을 대물변제한 것이라는 취지로 주장하나, 을 제18호증, 을 제19호증의 1, 2의 각 기재만으로는 망인이 피고의 위 공유지분 및 피고가 마련한 1억 원에 대한 대가 명목으로 별지 제4목록 표1 기재 각 부동산을 대물변제한 것이라는 점을 인정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 .

3 ) 피고는 끝으로, 망인이 강, 강▲▲에게 위 각 부동산을 증여하기는 하였으나 강, 강▲▲은 망인의 공동상속인이 아니므로 위 각 부동산의 가액은 유류분 산정의 기초가 되는 재산액에 포함되지 않는다는 취지로 주장하나, 상속개시 전 1년간에 행한 증여는 수증자가 공동상속인이든 제3자이든 가리지 아니하고 모두 유류분 산정의 기초가 되는 재산을 구성하는 것이라고 할 것인바 ( 민법 제1114조 전문 참조 ) , 망인이 강, 강▲▲에게 위 각 부동산을 증여한 2002. 11. 11. 은 망인이 사망한 2002. 12. 21. 로부터 1년 이내임이 역수상 분명하므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 . ( 사 ) 소결

따라서 망인이 피고에게 증여한 재산의 가액은 합계 982, 721, 457원 ( = 129, 163, 666원 + 191, 771, 001원 + 588, 889, 690원 + 72, 897, 100원 ) 이고, 망인이 강1, 강▲▲에게 증여한 재산의 가액은 합계 41, 877, 332원이다 . ( 3 ) 상속개시 당시 상속세를 비롯한 상속채무로서 원고들이 자인하는 금액은 4억 원이다 .

(4) Sub-decisions

유류분 산정의 기초가 되는 재산액 ( A ) 은 1, 286, 855, 027원 ( = 망인의 적극적 상속재산 662, 256, 238원 + 망인의 피고에 대한 증여액 982, 721, 457원 + 망인의 강 , 강▲▲에 대한 증여액 41, 877, 332원 - 상속채무 4억 원 ) 이다 .

C. The ratio of legal reserve of inheritance between the plaintiffs and the designated parties (1) and the designated parties (2) and the amount of legal reserve of inheritance

The statutory inheritance portion of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties are 1/4, respectively, since they are lineal descendants of the deceased, the designated parties, and the defendant inherited the deceased's property at the same ratio, while the statutory inheritance portion of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties is 1/2 of the statutory inheritance. Thus, the ratio of the statutory inheritance portion of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties is 1/8 ( = 1/4 x 1/2), respectively ( = 1/8). The statutory inheritance portion of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties is 160,856,878 won ( = 1,286,85,027 x 1/8) respectively.

(2) Special benefits of the plaintiffs and the designated parties (C)

In this case, there is no special benefit of the plaintiffs and the designated parties.

(3) The facts as seen above are as follows: (a) the net amount of inheritance of the plaintiffs and the selector (a) and (1) the aggregate amount of the inherited property acquired by inheritance at the time of the death of the deceased; (b) the aggregate amount of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2,85, and 238 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 285, and 38 as the aggregate amount of deposits listed in the separate sheet No. 5-1, 4, and 24; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the market value appraisal of the appraiser No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 292, and 10 as the aggregate amount of the value of each real estate acquired by the plaintiffs at the time of the commencement of inheritance; (d) the aggregate amount of the value of each real estate acquired by the plaintiff 1 as at the time of the commencement of inheritance is 10, 60, 37, 1, 60.1, 60.

① Plaintiff 146, 586, 975 won ( = 97, 292, 00 won + 32,973, 666 won + (65, 285, 238 won X1/4) ? 159, 931, 975 won ( = 110, 637, 637, 973, 666 won + (65, 285, 238 won x 1/4)))

(3) Appointed: 210, 689, 975 won [ = 161, 395,00 won + 32,973, 666 won + (65, 285, 238 won x 1/4)]; (b) The allotted inherited debts.

Plaintiffs and Selections: Each KRW 100 million ( = 400 million) (c) the net inheritance amount of the Plaintiffs and Selections (D)

① Plaintiff ○○○: KRW 46,586,975 ( = 146,586,975 - KRW 100 million)

② Plaintiff-leap: 59,931,975 won ( = 159,931,975 won - 100 million won)

(3) Selections: 10,689,975 won ( = 210,689,975 won - 100 million won) (D) Plaintiffs and Selections' shortage in legal reserve of inheritance.

① 13, 99, 903 won ( = 160, 856, 878 won - 46, 586, 975 won) ② Plaintiff - 100, 924, 903 won ( = 160, 856, 878 won - 59, 931, 975 won) ③ 50,16,903 won ( = 160,856, 878 won - 110,689, 975 won)

D. When there are several co-inheritors who received donations or testamentary gifts when the person with the right to the legal reserve of inheritance was to return the legal reserve of inheritance (1) and the method of return was to return the legal reserve of inheritance, in accordance with the purpose of the legal reserve of inheritance prescribed by the Civil Act and the purport of Article 1115(2) of the Civil Act, the value of each of the other co-inheritors's donations exceeds his own legal reserve of inheritance of the heir exceeding his own legal reserve of inheritance of the heir.

It shall be possible to claim the return of the forced portion. If there is a third party who is not the co-inheritors and the co-inheritors, the third party shall be entitled to claim the return of the forced portion, on the basis of the amount exceeding his own forced portion. The third party shall be entitled to claim the return according to the ratio of each amount based on the value of the evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da17885 delivered on February 9, 1996). Meanwhile, the Civil Act recognizes the forced portion system and provides for the method of return of the forced portion under Articles 1112 through 1118, but it is the ordinary law of the return of the property itself. Thus, inasmuch as the person entitled to the forced portion claims the return of the secured portion by the method of return of the original property and if it is possible to return the original property, the court shall order the return of the original property according to the method of claim by the person entitled to the secured portion, unless there are any special circumstances.

( 2 ) 특별수익을 얻은 수증자들의 유류분 초과액 ( 가 ) 피고 , 821, 864, 579원 = 증여재산의 가액 982, 721, 457원 - 유류분액 160, 856, 878원 ( = 1, 286, 855, 027원 × 1 / 8, 원고들 및 선정자의 유류분액과 같다 ) } ( 나 ) 피고의 아들 강, 강▲▲ 증여재산의 가액인 각 20, 938, 666원 ( 3 ) 피고가 원고들 및 선정자에게 반환하여야 하는 금원 ( 가 ) 원고들은 원물반환의 방법에 의한 유류분의 반환을 구하지 아니하고 있고 , 피고가 증여받은 목적물 중에서 별지 제4목록 표1 기재 각 부동산은 제1심 판결에 기한 가집행으로 매각된 결과 ( 갑 제34호증의 1, 2, 4 ) 당심 변론종결일 현재 특별히 원물 반환을 명할 필요가 있는 재산은 없는 것으로 보이므로, 피고는 원고들 및 선정자에게' 원고들 또는 선정자의 각 유류분 부족액 × 피고의 유류분 초과액 : ( 피고의 유류분 초과액 + 강, 강▲▲의 증여재산의 가액 ) ' 의 계산방식으로 산정한 아래의 금원을 반환하여야 한다 .

(B) Amount of 108, 472, 775 won ( = 113, 99, 903 won x 821, 864, 579 won: 863, 741, 911 won: 863, 741, 911 won): (c) amount of 96,031, 698 won ( = 100, 924, 903 x 821, 864, 579 won: 863, 741, 911 won) (d) amount of 47,734, 630 won to be returned to the selected person: (50, 166, 903 x 821, 864, 579, 1479, 197, 479)

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as a shortage in legal reserve of inheritance, is obligated to pay KRW 108,472,775 to Plaintiff ○○, Plaintiff 96,031,698, and 47,734, and 630 to the Selection.

E. Determination as to the Defendant’s argument (1) as to the waiver of the right to claim the return of forced inheritance

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiffs and the designated parties have renounced their right to claim the return of the forced portion of inheritance since they obtained all of the deceased's inherited property from the defendant and agreed on the division of inherited property.

If the co-inheritors have agreed on the division of inherited property with the verification of the details of the inherited property and the property of the inheritee’s pre-sale in the process of the agreement on the division of inherited property, such agreement on the division of inherited property can be recognized as a waiver of the right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance against other property. However, if some co-inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property only for the property partially confirmed without knowing the details of the inherited property and the property of the inheritee’s pre-sale, it cannot be deemed that some co-inheritors renounced the right to claim the return

With respect to this case, the facts that the plaintiffs, the designated parties, and the defendant agreed on the division of inherited property on June 19, 2003 regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto are as seen above. However, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiffs and the designated parties at the time agreed on the division of inherited property under the verification of the details of the inherited property and the inherited property of the deceased. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

(2) Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription

The Defendant investigated and confirmed the deceased’s inherited property before and after the time when the deceased died. ① On February 10, 2003, the Plaintiffs issued the details of the NAC’s deposit account opened in the name of the deceased. On February 12, 2003, one bank deposit account opened in the name of the deceased and the details of the disposal thereof were issued. As such, on February 2, 2003, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties were issued the details of the transactions of one bank deposit account and Korean investment trust deposit account.

12. 에는 망인 명의로 개설된 예금과 관련하여 반환하여야 할 증여가 있었다는 사실을 알았다고 할 것이어서 별지 제3목록 기재 각 예금에 대한 청구권은 시효로 소멸하였고, ② 원고들은 2003. 초경 망인이 사망하기 전까지 망인을 간병하던 김▲▲를 통하여 별지 제4목록 표1 기재 각 부동산이 피고에게, 같은 목록 표2 기재 각 부동산이 피고의 아들인 강, 강▲▲에게 각 증여된 사실을 확인하였으므로, 같은 목록 표1, 표2 기재 각 부동산에 대한 유류분반환청구권 역시 시효로 소멸하였다는 취지로 주장한다 .

First, there is no evidence to prove that each deposit listed in the separate sheet No. 3 was given to the Defendant by the method of transferring the foregoing deposit established under the name of the deceased or its deposit claim, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs knew that there was a gift to be returned in relation to each of the above deposits established under the name of the deceased around February 12, 2003, and therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

다음으로, 별지 제4목록 표1, 표2 기재 각 부동산에 대하여 보건대, 을 제6, 12호증, 을 제13호증의 1의 각 기재만으로는 원고들이 2003. 초경 김▲▲를 통하여 같은 목록 표1 기재 각 부동산이 피고에게, 같은 목록 표2 기재 각 부동산이 강, 강▲▲에게 각 증여되었음을 확인하였다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 .

(3) Determination on the assertion of the contributory portion

The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant has fulfilled his duty to support the deceased by gathering the deceased who was suffering from his usual disease, and that the deceased also contributed to the maintenance and management of the deceased's property by entrusting the defendant with all disposal rights on his property. Thus, the defendant's inherited property should be considered or deducted from the deceased's inherited property by 1/4 or more of the contributory portion.

If there is a person who specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the property of the inheritee or specially supported by the inheritee among co-inheritors, the calculation of the contributory portion shall be determined by an agreement among co-inheritors, and if the agreement is not reached or cannot be reached, the Family Court shall, upon the application of the contributor, decide the contributory portion by adjudication. As such, the heir who contributed to the Defendant in a lawsuit claiming the recovery of the contributory portion before the determination of the contributory portion by such method cannot assert as a defense that his contributory portion should be deducted from the inherited property (Supreme Court Decision 19

10. 14. 14. See Supreme Court Decision 94Da8334. 14.), there is no evidence to acknowledge that there has been an agreement among co-inheritors on the calculation of the Defendant’s contributory portion, and instead, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 24, the judgment of the family court rejecting the Defendant’s claim for the contributory portion (an adjudication of Seoul Family Court 2009Dohap11, 2009Dohap60 (merger) became final and conclusive around August 2010. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without having to consider the remaining points. The judgment on the claim

The defendant paid 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff leap○○ as an inheritance agreement.

The plaintiff ○○ asserts to the effect that he received KRW 80 million from the defendant, not in the name of inheritance agreement, but in the name of the defendant's husband's claim for indemnity against ○○○○○, which was not partially repaid.

According to the judgment of 00,00,000 Won 2,00,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000 Won 2,000,00,000 Won 2,00,000,000,000 Won 1,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 10,000,000,000,00,000 KRW 30,00,000,00,000,00,000,00 KRW 6,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

F. Sub-committee

As a result of the return of legal reserve of inheritance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○ for KRW 28,472,775 ( = 108,472,775 - KRW 80,000), Plaintiff 96,031,698, 47,734,630, and damages for delay on each of the above amounts.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition.

5. Conclusion

Then, the defendant's ancillary claim amount of 4, 79, 084 won = 16, 321, 309 won + 16, 321, 309 won per annum from the 10th day following the judgment for 30th day of performance, 200 per annum for the defendant's ancillary claim amount of 16, 321, 309 won per annum from the 10th day following the judgment for 30th day of performance, 30% per annum for the defendant's ancillary claim amount of 9th day of May 31, 207, 19th day after the 19th day of June 9, 207, 19th day after the 20th day of the judgment for 19th day of the judgment, 30% per annum for 20th day of the judgment for 9th day after the 19th day of the judgment, 27th day of the judgment for 3rd day of performance.

11. The plaintiffs are obligated to pay damages for delay at 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are accepted within the scope of each recognition above, and the remainder of the main and conjunctive claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The part concerning the conjunctive claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair. Thus, the part concerning the conjunctive claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is partially accepted by the defendant's appeal concerning the conjunctive claims, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.