부담부증여해제 등
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims additionally expanded and withdrawn at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:
Defendant.
1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. 1.). Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. 1) The Deceased’s primary assertion 1) (1) at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, he donated the shares of each land of this case to the Defendants, and agreed that 30% of the shares of each corporation established after the establishment of a corporation for gas filling stations operated on each land of this case shall be distributed from the Defendants, and such agreement constitutes a burden prescribed in Article 561 of the Civil Act, and the Defendants violated the agreement, such as not allocating the shares of the deceased to the deceased. (2) Even if the above agreement cannot be seen as bearing the shares of the deceased, the Defendants were urged the deceased to enter into the gift contract of this case by deceiving the deceased to distribute 30% of shares of the corporation, and thus, the agreement of this case constitutes fraudulent declaration, and thus constitutes an expression of intent by mistake. (2) On May 10, 2004, the Deceased delivered the contents of the gift contract of this case to the Defendants by cancellation or cancellation of the agreement of this case due to the Defendants’ non-performance of the agreement of this case.
3. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to perform the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants with respect to the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance to the deceased's successors.
In addition, Defendant F constructed gas charging stations on each land of this case for use and profit-making of each land of this case. As the gift contract of this case was legally rescinded or cancelled, Defendant FF out of each land of this case.