지분이전등기 말소등
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the second preliminary claim are all dismissed.
2. The second preliminary claim for the costs of appeal shall be additionally filed; and
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) who was the owner of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) died on February 22, 2013. The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiffs (1/9 each of the inheritance shares due to inheritance), who were the children of his/her father F, who died first than the deceased, (1/3 of the inheritance shares due to inheritance), the Defendant (1/3 of the inheritance shares due to inheritance), the deceased’s wife (1/3 of the inheritance shares due to inheritance), and H (1/3 of the deceased’s inheritance shares).
B. On July 9, 2007, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on the grounds of sale on July 6, 2007, before the deceased died (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”).
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, prior to the death of the Deceased, took over the Deceased’s obligation of KRW 90,000 as a discharge, and paid interest thereon, and paid KRW 50,000 on January 5, 2012, and KRW 40,000 on January 10, 2012, performed all the obligation of the said loan by paying KRW 40,000,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. The registration of ownership transfer of the plaintiffs' assertion in collusion with the deceased and the defendant, or completed with the documents in the name of the deceased forged by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration which completed the plaintiffs' inheritance share of each real estate of this case.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 10, it can be acknowledged that the deceased received treatment due to dementia around November 22, 2004. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
3. Judgment on the ancillary cause of the claim