Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance No. 1 is justified.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: 1. Basic facts based on the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, including abbreviations, are cited.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion is a lawsuit claiming recovery of inheritance. The claim for recovery of inheritance becomes extinct after the limitation period of three years from the date the infringement becomes known. The inheritor including the Plaintiff, etc. knew of the Defendant’s sole inheritance at the time of the completion of the registration of the instant case in accordance with the agreement, and even if not, from the end of 2013, the Defendant started to operate orchard with delivery of each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) by the former employer from J, the former employer, and the Plaintiff et al. was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. had completed the registration of transfer of ownership by inheritance from the end of 2014, where the Plaintiff et al. purchased the instant real estate from the former for the first time of 2013, or from the end of 2014, the instant lawsuit filed after three

B. 1) Determination 1) Even in a case where a claim for cancellation, etc. of a registration of real estate, which is inherited property, is filed against the co-inheritors who are co-inheritors who are co-inheritors who are co-inheritors, on the premise that they are true inheritors with respect to the inheritance of property, the registration of cancellation of the registration of this case shall be interpreted as a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act, regardless of the cause of the claim, unless the claim that the ownership or right of ownership belongs to the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da5740, Dec. 24, 1991). The plaintiff did not consent to the division of the inherited property of this case, which is inherited property, against the defendant co-inheritors of the deceased.