2.C

3.D

4.E

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/3 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B performed the procedure for the cancellation of each registration of ownership transfer completed under the receipt No. 626 of January 19, 2001, Defendant C’s transfer of equity ownership, Defendant C’s transfer of equity ownership completed under the receipt No. 8294 of September 10, 201 with the same registry office, Defendant D’s transfer of equity ownership completed under the receipt No. 626 of January 19, 201 with the same registry office, Defendant E performed the procedure for the cancellation of each registration of ownership transfer completed under the receipt No. 8078 of August 17, 2010 with the same registry office.

2. Preliminary claim;

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and E’s shares of each of the 1/3 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each of the 1/2 shares of each of the 1/3 shares will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the return of legal reserve on the date of delivery

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") was owned by F. On January 19, 201, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 11, 2001 in the name of G, Defendant B, and Defendant D (hereinafter referred to as "the donee of this case") for one-third share of each of the respective real estate of this case as of January 19, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for registration of each transfer of ownership" of this case, and each of the above registrations of ownership transfer completed by the donation of this case was called "the registration of gift of this case").

B. On August 17, 2010, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 16, 2010 with respect to all shares in Defendant D, among each of the instant real estate, on August 17, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “sale of this case’s registration of ownership transfer”) and on September 10, 2012, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “registration of ownership transfer”) in Defendant C’s name on the ground of an inheritance agreement division on March 11, 2012.

C. The F died on February 27, 2015, and the Plaintiff, a child of the deceased F (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), as H, was written by the Plaintiff who was the deceased’s child. According to the transcript of the Plaintiff, the I, a spouse of the deceased, reported the birth of the Plaintiff by J.

【Unsatisfying the grounds for recognition】 【Unsatisfying the facts, Gap’s evidence 1 to 7

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that he was the sole heir of the deceased's property as a woman. The plaintiff is the primary and conjunctive claim under the premise of this, and claims against the defendants, or defendants B, C, and E as follows.

(a) The primary claim

The Deceased attempted to donate each of the instant real properties to the Village K in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, where the capital increase in the instant case was resided at the time of the instant donation registration. However, with the knowledge that it is impossible to register the name of K, the Deceased concluded a title trust agreement with the person with the title of this case and completed the instant donation registration. However, K is merely a name in an administrative district, not a non-corporate association or foundation, and thus cannot be the subject of a legal act, and it cannot be the subject of a legal act, nor can it conclude a title trust agreement or enter into a title trust agreement with the deceased. Accordingly, the gift declaration made by the deceased with K and the instant donation registration against the instant donee based on the deceased’s intent of donation and the instant donation registration on the basis thereof are null and void, and the Defendants are obligated to cancel the instant donation, sale, and inheritance registration on the basis thereof to the Plaintiff who inherited the deceased’s property solely.

(b) Preliminary claim

The Plaintiff, as the sole heir of the deceased, has a right to the legal reserve equivalent to 1/2 of the legal reserve of inheritance. The gift of this case infringes upon the right to the legal reserve of inheritance, and completed the gift registration of this case with the knowledge that the increase in the capital of this case would inflict damage on the Plaintiff, who is the right holder of the legal reserve of inheritance. Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant C, and E, who purchased or inherited shares of 1/3 of the instant real estate from the donee of this case, are obligated to implement the procedures such as transfer of ownership, etc. as to the share of 1/6 of each of the instant real estate as the return of the legal reserve of inheritance to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on this safety defense

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff is not the natural father of the deceased, and that the report of birth of the plaintiff done by the deceased's spouse cannot be deemed to have the effect of creating a adoptive parent relationship between the deceased and the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the inheritor of the deceased. The plaintiff asserts that the surrounding and conjunctive claims of this case raised by a person who is not the inheritor are unlawful by lacking the qualification of the party.

However, the issue of whether the Plaintiff is an inheritor in a lawsuit claiming a registration based on invalidation of the cause of registration or return of legal reserve of inheritance cannot be seen as a matter of whether the right to claim a registration exists or not, i.e., the question of whether the principal is a matter of the right to claim a registration, or as a matter of the party’s hostileity. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the primary and conjunctive

4. Determination as to the establishment of adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased

Although the Plaintiff is not the father of the deceased, but the adoptive parent relationship was established with the deceased’s spouse’s birth report. As such, the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claim against the Defendants on the premise that the deceased’s property was inherited solely as the mother’s mother. Therefore, on the premise of determining the primary and conjunctive claim of this case, it is examined as to whether the adoptive parent relationship was established by reducing the birth report between the Plaintiff and the deceased upon the birth report.

A. Relevant legal principles

A report of the birth of the natural father of a child by the party to the adoption shall take effect if the actual conditions of the adoption are met. In this case, the false report of the birth of the natural father of a child shall have the function of a report of adoption which discloses the relationship of the adoptive parent of the person related to the natural father of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the parent of the child. In addition, the report of the birth of the natural father of the parent of the child shall take effect retroactively if the actual conditions of the adoption were not met at the time of the report of the birth of the father of the father of the parent of the child of the child of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the child of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the child of the other parent of the other parent of the child of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the other parent of the child of the other parent of the other parent of the child of the other parent of the child of the other person.

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, there is no dispute between the deceased and the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not the father of the deceased. Thus, in order to establish a adoptive parent relationship between the deceased and the plaintiff, the deceased's report of birth as the father of the adoption was made, and the adoption must meet the actual requirements. However, each of the evidence and the evidence Nos. 15 and 17 as mentioned above is insufficient to deem that the deceased had an intent to adopt the plaintiff even at the time of the report of birth against the plaintiff or after the report of birth, or that the deceased had an intention to adopt the plaintiff, or that there was an agreement between the deceased and the plaintiff as to adoption, and that there was no other evidence to determine otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following facts or circumstances, the above evidence and evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 6-1, 4-2, Eul evidence No. 7-1, and Eul evidence No. 7-1, or the whole purport of the pleading is recognized or known, the deceased and the plaintiff No. 1 were not found to have any personal life as a adoptive parent, such as custody and custody, after the report of birth against the plaintiff.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff had found that there was a fact from around 2011 to find the Deceased several times, or that there was a change in a sanatorium admitted by the Deceased, in light of the Plaintiff’s respective facts and circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was merely a unilateral act of the Plaintiff, and thus, the deceased expressed his intention to adopt or confirm the deceased’s intention to take the deceased as his woman. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the adoptive parent relationship was established between the Plaintiff and the Deceased is without merit, and there is no need to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendants and the conjunctive claim against the Defendant, B, C, and E based on this premise.

1) On April 30, 1970, the deceased and 1 spouse of the deceased were the natives of their origin from Pyeongtaek-gun, and they were in a state without a family register, and I reported her and her family register on May 8, 1970. The birth report for the plaintiff was filed two years and six months after the filing of the above report.

2) The plaintiff filed a report of birth with L on January 19, 1973 and was removed from the above family register on March 8, 1973.

3) After filing a report on the family register, the deceased resided in the Republic of Korea on May 4, 2004, and filed a move-in report on May 4, 2004 with the Nanwon-gun Nanwon-gun on December 29, 2014. On February 23, 2015, the deceased moved-in report to the Nanwon-gun Panwon-gun on February 23, 2015, and died at the above domicile. The plaintiff and the deceased were not reported once from February 19, 1976 to April 14, 2015. In light of this, the deceased and the plaintiff filed a move-in report on the family register with the deceased to the same purport. In light of this, the deceased and the plaintiff did not seem to have lived with the deceased until the time of their death after the report on the family register.

4) According to the statement of the certified transcript of the Plaintiff, Q, a child born between the Plaintiff and L, was born on December 1, 1971 on the date of the marriage report of the Plaintiff and the date of the birth report of the Plaintiff, and on December 1, 1971, at least one year prior to the date of the birth report, and entered the birth report by L on the date of the above marriage report. However, the birth of Q differs from the deceased’s domicile and the administrative district. In light of this fact, the Plaintiff appears to have not lived with the deceased and I before the birth report of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff himself was also living with L at the time of the birth report of the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Plaintiff and I did not have any circumstance to protect and rear the Plaintiff).

5) On October 9, 192, I, the birth report of the Plaintiff, died on October 9, 192. While I’s funeral was supervised by K residents who lived together with the Deceased and the Deceased, there was no fact that the Plaintiff participated in the funeral schedule. Thereafter, on April 5, 1993, the name of I’s children and the fifth degree of grandparents was written, but the name of the Plaintiff was not written. In addition, in light of these circumstances, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiff had no contact with I or the Deceased before looking at the full adoption relationship between the Plaintiff and the Deceased.

6) The letter of donation of the Republic of Korea prepared by the deceased at the time of the donation of this case contains S, T, U with her husband’s children located in the north of the East Line, and there is no child. If I’s children, who had been established in North Korea after the unification, wanted to find and enter into the contract of this case on the condition that I’s graveyard and transfer of the land to the deceased, and the land above, if I’s children wish to find it. This is consistent with I’s above statement with I, and in light of each of the above statement, the deceased did not consider the Plaintiff as his child at the time of the donation of this case.

7) The deceased had an interview with the content that, by contributing to the terrestrial television program (V) before his birth, the plaintiff had been able to understand the family register with the remaining fluenite with only fluenite, and that, even in only one room, the plaintiff had been able to see the family register with only fluenite, and that there was no fluenite with a brue with a single brue.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary claims against the defendants and the conjunctive claims against the defendants B, C, and E are all dismissed.

( Deletion of List)