1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

With respect to this case, this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance refers to "the decision of not more than 3.3 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as follows, and it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the entry as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Determination

A. First, the Plaintiffs asserted that the written agreement (No. 1) was forged for the first time in the trial, and thus, we examine this.

There is no dispute over the fact that the stamp image of the plaintiffs' names in the above written consultation was reproduced by the seal of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, unless other special circumstances exist, the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, and if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act

Furthermore, even based on some testimony of the witness G of the first instance court, since all co-inheritors, including G and the plaintiffs, have affixed a seal on the written agreement, it is sufficiently recognized that the above written agreement was made according to the intent of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' assertion that the above written agreement was forged is rejected.

B. If the authenticity of an agreement, which is a disposal document, is recognized, the existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the content of the agreement should be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the content of the agreement.

(2) In the case of this case, the real estate in this case is owned by the defendant without any entry of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiffs, as stated by the plaintiffs, and KRW 45,000,000, which is the ordinary deposit of the parent-unit cooperative of agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “the parent-agricultural cooperative”) is merely stated that the co-inheritors, except the defendant, own the real estate in this case.

The above facts and the evidence mentioned above can be seen as follows.