소유권이전등기
1. The part against Defendant D among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff A's preliminary part pertaining to the revoked part is revoked.
1. The first instance court, within the scope of this court’s adjudication, dismissed each primary claim against the Defendants of Plaintiff A, and since Plaintiff A did not appeal each primary claim, the respective primary claim against the Defendants of Plaintiff A is excluded from the subject of the adjudication of this court.
2. Basic facts
A. The relationship 1) The parties’ relationship 1) the net F (hereinafter “the network”).
(2) On April 12, 1988, the deceased on April 28, 198, and the inheritor was the wife, the wife, the 1 South-Nam, the 1 South-Nam, the Ha, the Ha, the Ha, the Ha, the Ha, the Ha, the 4-I, and the plaintiff B. The defendant E was the wife of the I on May 10, 1989. 2) The deceased on September 12, 1993, and the plaintiff C was its heir.
3) The net G died on September 21, 2005. The final inheritance shares of the Plaintiffs, I, and Defendant D are as shown in the separate inheritance calculation sheet. B) Defendant D completed each registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “one ownership transfer registration”) based on the inheritance of property due to the consultation division on April 8, 198, with the head of Changwon District Court No. 6722, No. 6722, Apr. 20, 190, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate attachment No. 1 list and each real estate listed in the separate attachment No. 2 list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).
2) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list, Defendant E shall register the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the transfer of ownership No. 2”) under No. 28862 received on December 28, 2006 from the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court.
【Ground for Recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, the purport of the whole pleadings)
3. The plaintiffs' primary claim and the conjunctive claim of this case are not contradictory to their nature, and they are selective in a selective relationship. If both claims of this nature are filed in the form of a consolidation of primary claims, they shall be limited to the order and scope of the trial.