1. Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, and L are the amount corresponding to the amount indicated in the separate sheet in the Plaintiffs, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. N had his children as Defendant C, P, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant K, Q, Defendant L, Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B, between N andO.

B. P died on March 3, 2004, and his heir is Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant H, the wife of which is Defendant D, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant H.

C. N was killed on October 12, 2005

(hereinafter referred to as “N”) d.

The deceased owned before his birth a 509m2 and R 1568m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 28, 1994, the deceased completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of gift on December 20, 1984 in relation to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) 1/6 shares among the instant real estate.

After the death of P, on January 10, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed according to the proportion of statutory inheritance in relation to the above P's share in the name of Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant H.

E. Defendant C and Defendant K own one-half shares, respectively, through a compulsory auction and an auction procedure for partition of co-owned property, with respect to the area of 509m2 in the voice-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

R 1568m2 was sold to others during compulsory auction.

F. There was no particular positive inheritance or inheritance obligation at the time of the deceased’s death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows: (a) the plaintiffs asserted that they infringed the legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiffs who are co-inheritors by receiving the real estate of this case, which is the deceased's property; and (b) they sought the return of legal reserve of inheritance against the defendants.

3. As to the plaintiffs' claims in this case regarding defendant C, J, and K, the above defendants defense that the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of forced portion became extinct due to the completion of prescription. We first examine the above defense.

l.p. g., p.