[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are children of the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the plaintiff is three females in South and North Korea, and the defendant is South and North Korea.

B. On April 10, 2007, the Deceased made a will to designate D as an executor under the participation of witness D and E at the Samsung Law Firm office with the consent of witness D and E, and to testamentary gift of 271m2 to the Defendant in Gyeyang-gu, Yangsan-si (hereinafter “the real estate”). The attorney-at-law in charge of authentication of the above law firm who heard the will No. 23 of the No. 2007 (hereinafter “the No. 1 will of this case”) was prepared to read it to the testator and witness, and read it to the testator, witness, and the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication was signed and sealed by the testator. On June 15, 2012, the Deceased designated the Plaintiff as an executor under the participation of witness F and G with the participation of the law firm office, and signed and sealed the will to the Plaintiff 1/3 shares of this case to the Plaintiff, H(I) and 201m2 of the above testamentary gift to each of the above law firm (hereinafter “the testator”).

D. On September 27, 2012, the Deceased died, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on testamentary gift on October 5, 2012, the Ulsan District Court Yangsan District Court’s receipt of No. 51975, Oct. 5, 2012, and September 27, 2012. [Grounds for recognition] fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s entries in the evidence No. 1 through 3 (including the numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased designated the executor as the plaintiff, unlike the notarial deed of this case, which was written before the notarial deed of this case on the notarial deed of this case, and determined differently from the contents of testamentary gift, the will by the notarial deed of this case in conflict with this shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in accordance with Article 1109 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to the real estate in this case according to the testamentary gift by the notarial deed of this case, shall be deemed invalid without any legitimate cause. Therefore, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as mentioned above to the plaintiff

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defense to the effect that the notarial deed of the second will of this case was null and void since the deceased was in a state where he had no mental capacity at the time when the notarial deed of this case was prepared. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the description of the notarial deed of this case No. 7, the notarial deed of this case No. 8, and the testimony of the witness G, according to the statement of the notarial deed of this case No. 2 of this case, it can be recognized that the deceased was in a state where notarial deed

B. Next, the defendant defense to the effect that the signature of the deceased on the No. 2 will of this case was written by another person because the signature of the deceased on the No. 2 will of this case was written by the other person, and thus the No. 2 will of this case is null and void due to lack of formal requirements. However, according to the witness G's testimony, it is recognized that the deceased signed on the above No. 1 will of this case, and further, in light of the circumstance that the body of the deceased on the No. 2 will of this case and the No. 2 will of this case is the same

C. Finally, the defendant defense to the effect that the real estate of this case was trusted by the defendant to the deceased, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was effective in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, but it is not sufficient to recognize the title trust of this case only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 11 through 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.