1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants were children of G (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Deceased had 5 South and North 2 children.

B. The deceased, on January 10, 1990, made a registration of ownership transfer to Defendant E on January 19, 1990 on the ground of donation on January 17, 1990, 208, 1,200 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, I, 2,68 square meters, 126 square meters before J, and 1,438 square meters before K, L road 36 square meters, M 893 square meters, and 1220 square meters before NN (the land was cultivated as a single dry field with adjoining land) on the ground of donation on December 22, 1989. The deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant E on January 19, 199 on the ground of donation on January 17, 1990. The registration of ownership transfer was made on the ground that each of the former P1,425 square meters was made on September 19, 1989.

(hereinafter “instant donation”). C.

The above H is divided into Q 521 square meters on December 20, 2002, and Q 192 square meters on November 28, 2006 into R, respectively, and Q 12 square meters on February 11, 2004, and is divided into T 1,2,10 through 12 in attached Table 1.

In addition, P is divided into U, 1,208 square meters on June 28, 1990 into U, and 20 square meters into V, and is as shown in attached Tables 1 through 3.

At the time of the above donation, the Defendants were residing or cultivated in each donated land, and Defendant E is also residing and cultivated until now except for the sale by dividing part of H site around 2004.

E. The Deceased died on July 12, 2005 (the age of 85 at the time of his death due to the birth in 1921) and resided in Defendant E and the above H, and there is no property other than the instant donation property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 7 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The judgment of the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance has expired due to the lapse of the prescription period stipulated in the main sentence of Article 1117 of the Civil Code, and this is first examined.

A. The right to claim the recovery of the legal reserve of inheritance shall be the donation that the person with the right to the legal reserve of inheritance should return.