P Around November 13, 2012, the heir died, and there was Defendant F, Q’s wife, Defendant G, and Defendant I, the wife of Q, who died before the death of Defendant B, C, D, E, and P.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, P’s inheritance shares out of the land of this case shall be 3/5, and the Defendants’ inheritance shares in the above shares are identical to the entry in the column of “legal share in inheritance” in the attached sheet of account of shares in inheritance. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale on October 24, 201 with respect to each share in the attached sheet of account of shares in inheritance (A*B) of the land of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant sales contract is null and void as a juristic act of which the fairness has been considerably lost due to P’s old-age, rashness, or inexperience.

B. Even if the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract is compared to the officially announced price of the land of this case, the fact that P was the franchise is considerably small, and the fact that P was the franchise can be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 3, but the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5. In other words, according to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was constructed on the land of this case while P is alive even after the payment of the purchase price was made.