1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim as to the defendant whose exchange was changed in this court is dismissed.

2. Action.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, the designated parties, and the defendant are children of the network C.

The net C died on December 5, 1990.

B. At the time of death, the net C was divided into a 2,836 square meters of L paddy-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu (hereinafter “instant D real estate”) and a 220 square meters of land on the 269 square meters of Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, on January 15, 2007 into a 220 square meters of land.

In addition, the above land and buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant G real estate”) were owned by the “instant G real estate,” and the instant D real estate and G real estate were owned in total.

C. On January 9, 1997, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of this case on the grounds of inheritance by agreement division on December 5, 1990.

Around December 1, 1997, the Yan City decided to incorporate the G G of this case into a public site, and paid compensation to the defendant.

On January 13, 1998, the Yanan City completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the acquisition of public land through consultation on December 1, 1997 with respect to the G real estate in this case.

E. On May 28, 2019, the Defendant sold the instant D real estate in KRW 940,000,000 to a third party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branch offices), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's prior defense and its judgment on the merits constitute a claim for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act for monetary payment following the network C's agreement on division of inherited property that the plaintiff changed in exchange in this court. The defendant asserts that the limitation period under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act exceeds the limitation period and thus is unlawful

However, the plaintiff does not claim that the ownership or the right of share of inherited property belongs to the plaintiff and the designated parties on the ground of inheritance, but rather claim that the plaintiff has reverted to the defendant.