A. On March 10, 1948, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”) was completed in the name of the deceased H.

B. The deceased on Dec. 10, 1982, and the deceased on Dec. 10, 1982, the deceased on Dec. 10, 1982, there was a deceased person’s heir I (family heir) and Defendant E and G (the deceased H had already been married at the time of death).

In addition, the deceased I died on May 31, 2003 and there is a plaintiff, defendant B, C, and D who is the wife as the inheritor.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B, C, D, and G: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant E, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. As seen earlier, the facts that the instant house was owned by the network H and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants were present as the heir of the network H are as follows. On July 3, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the purport that the Plaintiff owned the instant house solely from the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, other than the Plaintiff and the Defendant E, shall be deemed to have led to the confession among the Defendants. The remainder of the Defendants, other than the Plaintiff and the Defendant E, shall be presumed to have been proven to have been the authenticity of the document as to the entry of the evidence No. 3 (where there is no dispute over the Defendant’s stamp image portion, the entire document shall be presumed to have been established. Defendant E used the seal of Defendant E against Defendant E’s will

In light of the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to their own shares of inheritance, such as Paragraph (1) of this case, among the housing of this case, to the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.