1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B’s share [48,941,790] of the real estate listed in [Attachment 1] and (2) of [Attachment 1].

1. Basic facts

A. A. On November 28, 2018, D died after having left the Plaintiff, Defendants, and Nonparty F, G, and H, who is the wife, Nonparty E, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 4, the wife of which was the inheritor.

However, the plaintiff is a married person D.

B. D, prior to the death, donated the attached list 1, which was located in the I-si I-dong, to the Defendants, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

On September 10, 1949. 858,48,480,00 B (2 Nam) on the date of donation at the time of the acquisition of the deceased of the land subject to the order of 12,397 square meters". 16, 197. 16, June 16, 197, 197; 1,450,49,000 C (C) 1,463,200,000 on September 16, 200, 1949; 1,48,480,000 square meters". 1,50,000 on September 10, 1949; 203,000 square meters on June 16, 2001; 1,50,0000 square meters on September 1, 200, 1973; 2005N39,000 square meters on May 16, 197, 2006.

2. Judgment on the claim for restitution of legal reserve of inheritance

A. The plaintiff, as the inheritor of the deceased, may claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance from the Defendants, who are co-inheritors, to the extent of the shortage in legal reserve of inheritance due to the donation or testamentary gift to other co-inheritors of the deceased.

B. The Defendants asserted that (i) the Plaintiff did not contribute to the formation of property, and claiming the return of legal reserve even if there was no relationship between the deceased and his family members, is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. However, the above assertion is contrary to the inheritance and legal reserve system, and is therefore without merit.

The Defendants asserted that the deceased’s contribution to the formation and maintenance of property should be excluded from the basic property in calculating the legal reserve of inheritance because it constitutes a special benefit. However, it is recognized that the Defendants committed the act of farming solely with the deceased while they renounced their studies.