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

A. In around 2005, the Plaintiff was aware of the temple called “F” in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul as a member of D religious organizations.

B. At the time, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) owned each of the instant real estate as the deceased’s believers, and died without the heir on May 25, 2007.

C. On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with Seoul Family Court for the appointment of an administrator of inherited property of the Deceased, and the said court appointed C as an administrator of inherited property of the Deceased on January 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

6. At the time of the war on 25, the deceased living together with her husband was supported by the plaintiff at any time before her birth, such as consulting her own family history. Around 2005, the plaintiff confirmed the death of her deceased and expressed her will to donate each of the instant real estate to the plaintiff in return for taking an influence procedure, such as the deceased 49 et al., and on May 1, 2005, the plaintiff entered into a private donation contract (hereinafter "the donation contract of this case") between the plaintiff and the plaintiff by preparing the above will letter (hereinafter "the will letter of this case").

Therefore, the Defendant, as an administrator of inherited property of the Deceased, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the private donation contract of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder’s seal imprinted on the 1st private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been made, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made. However, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder’s intent to