beta
Text
1. On September 10, 2018, the Defendant issued each share in the separate sheet No. 2, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, to the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Plaintiff A, E, Plaintiff F, and Defendant I are children of the deceased H (the deceased on February 10, 2010; hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. On December 11, 2013, I died on December 11, 2013, and his heir is his spouse, Plaintiff B, C, and Plaintiff D.
C. On January 27, 2010, the Deceased entrusted the Defendant with the preparation of a testamentary document by which he/she bequeathed 6/19 shares owned by the Deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of the Deceased among the instant real property”) among the 1441 square meters of the area of 1441 square meters, Nam-si, Nam-si, and the notary public drafted a testament of the same content as the deed No. 48 in 2010.
On the other hand, on July 11, 2018, the Defendant completed a share transfer registration based on the legacy of this case regarding the deceased’s share among the instant real property.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any), and Article 1008 of the Civil Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 1118 of the Civil Act, which is the basis of calculating legal reserve of inheritance as to the cause of claim of the entire pleadings, provides that "where there is a person among co-inheritors who has received a donation or testamentary gift from the inheritee, and there is no person who has received the donation or testamentary gift from the inheritee, if the gift or testamentary gift does not reach his/her own share of inheritance, there is a portion of inheritance to the extent of the deficient portion." This is intended to take this into account in calculating the specific share of inheritance in order to ensure fairness among co-inheritors in cases where there is a special beneficiary who received a donation or testamentary gift from the inheritee among co-inheritors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1785, Feb. 9, 196).