소유권이전등기
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, parts of the judgment against Defendant E, F, and G, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended and added in the trial.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: ① on June 16, 201, the deceased made a private donation to the Plaintiff to give the instant real estate upon the death of the deceased on June 16, 2011 (hereinafter “the instant private donation”); ② “Defendant B” of the first instance court on April 15, 5, and “Defendant B” of the first instance court on March 4, 201, ③ “Defendant C” of the first instance court on April 16, 5, 3, and 4, “Codefendant C” of the first instance court on April 5, 201, ④ “Defendant D” of the first instance court on May 1, 201, ⑤ evidence 1 through 3, 10, 10, 11 through 4, 10, 15, 10, 15, 3, and 4, 15, 1, 3, 3, and 5, of the first instance court judgment.
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. 1) On the grounds of the claim, the Plaintiff asserted that, on June 16, 201, the Plaintiff had a duty to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above private donation, on the ground that, inasmuch as he/she died, he/she would make a private donation to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant private donation”). As such, the Defendants, the deceased’s heir, have a duty to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the said private donation with respect to the shares equivalent to his/her share of inheritance among each of the instant real estate.
B) The Defendants: (a) if the Deceased intended to transfer each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, they could transfer ownership before the death; and (b) in consideration of complex legal relations that may arise after the death, authenticated a private donation contract or signed it; and (c) as evidence of private donation submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence of private donation (No. 2-1 and hereinafter “the private donation contract of this case”).
section 2.2.