beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Since only the Defendant graduated from a four-year university among the children of the Plaintiff’s assertion C, the Plaintiff’s registration amount constitutes a donation made by the Deceased, and thus, the Defendant is entitled to claim the amount of legal reserve of inheritance KRW 3,121,60, and interest for delay.
2. The judgment donated property shall be calculated only for one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and when both parties made a donation with the knowledge that it would inflict damage on the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance, it shall include one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance (Article 1114 of the Civil Act). In the case where there is a person who has made a special benefit from the property by means of a pro rata donation from the inheritee among co-inheritors, Article 1114 of the Civil Act shall be excluded. Accordingly, the donation shall be included in the basic property for the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance regardless of whether it had been made one year prior to the commencement of the inheritance, and whether both parties knew that it would inflict damage on the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da1785, Feb. 9, 196). In addition, in calculating the legal reserve of inheritance, the value of donated property by the person liable to return, as at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, shall be calculated based on the monetary value at the time of conversion of the donated property.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28126, Jul. 23, 2009). The conversion criteria at this time are reasonable to use GDP displayers for the year as of the year of 2005, which reflects the change in the price level of the whole economy. In the end, the monetary value at the time of commencement of inheritance is calculated as “amount of gift x DoP display display scheme ± at the time of death ± at the time of donation.”
With respect to this case, there is no dispute over the facts that the plaintiff and the defendant are children of the deceased C, and according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 8, the plaintiff is the plaintiff.