소유권이전등기말소등기 청구 등
1. As to the plaintiffs' shares of 1/5 of the real estate in the separate sheet No. 1 among the plaintiffs' lawsuits against defendant E.
1. Basic facts
A. The network G was married with the network A and had the Plaintiffs and the Defendants as their children.
B. On June 2, 1962, the network G purchased the instant land (the network G was a 10.3 square meters as of September 9, 1989 by combining the instant land) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under one’s name as of June 8, 1962, Daejeon District Court No. 4627, Jun. 8, 1962.
C. The deceased G acquired the ownership of the instant building on September 17, 1977, and donated it to the deceased A on May 26, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 30713 on May 27, 2000 for the Daejeon District Court Decision.
Defendant F completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land under one’s name, which was based on testamentary gift on February 4, 2011 (hereinafter “instant testament”) by the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 26180, which was received on March 17, 2011.
On the other hand, Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer under one’s name on the ground of “the donation on March 21, 2011,” which was received on March 22, 2011 by the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 28366.
E. In addition, on January 4, 2011, the network drafted a testamentary document stating that “the sum of savings deposits deposited in the instant building and in the astronomical post offices and Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant savings deposit”) shall be bequeathed to Defendant F,” and then donated the instant savings deposit to Defendant E again on March 20, 2011.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant donation contract” by combining the instant building and the instant savings deposit contract with Defendant E
F. On September 21, 2011, Defendant E claimed that Defendant E declared A as a quasi-incompetent of the Gwangju District Court’s Macheon Branch. The gist of the claim is that “the deceased A’s dementia symptoms, which are the 81 years old, are serious, and thus, it cannot make a normal declaration of intention.” The above court’s judgment on October 20, 201, against the deceased A.