beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
A. Defendant C: (1) Of the 14,261,358/173,100,000 shares among the 1 real estate listed in the Schedule of Attached 1.
Reasons
1. On November 7, 2012, Non-Party E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died and succeeded to the facts inherited by the Plaintiffs and children, Defendant C, Non-Party F, G, and H, and Defendant D’s wife do not conflict between the parties.
2. The plaintiffs' claims for the return of forced portions are as follows.
Defendant C’s special profits from Defendant C’s special profits are the total of KRW 625,713,00,000.
B. Defendant D’s special profits from Defendant D’s special profits amounting to KRW 78,080,980 in total.
3. Determination on the scope of basic property
A. There is no dispute between the parties that no inherited property exists at the time of the deceased’s death of inherited property.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 4-4, and 16 of the scope of the real estate donated to Defendant C’s claim for special profits, the deceased may be recognized as having donated each of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 410 square meters in the East Sea with the Defendant C at the same time.
(2) As to this, Defendant C sold 410 square meters of the deceased’s answer I during the East Sea and used the price.
Since it is alleged to the effect that the basic property should not be included in the scope of the property because it was used for living expenses, etc. or as the price, the Defendant C sold 410 square meters of 1 m2 in East Sea to Nonparty J at the same time on April 11, 201, the life of the deceased, and on May 9, 201, even though it is recognized that it was a fact that the deceased sold the above land and used the price by selling it.
Defendant C’s assertion that he/she used the price for living expenses, etc. is insufficient to recognize such assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument as a result of the market price appraisal by K of the value of the donated real estate, Defendant C was donated as of November 7, 2012, which was at the time of the death of the deceased.