1. The defendant,

A. Attached Form C to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, and D

2. The real estate Nos. 1 to 5, 7, and 8 listed in the list.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs (Appointeds) and the designated parties, the defendant and the F are the deceased's successors [each successor's shares in inheritance: E3/13, F, the plaintiff (Appointeds) and the defendant, the designated parties C, and D 2/13], and each real estate listed in the attached list is the deceased's G's inherited property.

B. The annexed Form No. 16977 of the receipt of the Gwangju District Court's Mayangyang Branch Office on July 17, 2009

2. On August 14, 1998 with respect to real estate Nos. 1 to 5, 7, and 8 listed in the list, the registration of ownership transfer solely is completed on the ground of an inheritance division consultation, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed on October 22, 209 by the same registry office No. 25789.

2. On August 14, 1998, with respect to real estate No. 6, the registration of ownership transfer is completed solely by agreement on division of inherited property.

hereinafter the attached Form

2. Each of the real estate listed in the list is "the instant real estate" and each of the Defendant's registrations of ownership transfer pertaining thereto is "each of the instant real estate".

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap (including paper numbers, 6 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant forged a written agreement on division of inherited property and completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant cases, each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer is invalid and should be cancelled accordingly.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant forged the agreement on the division of inherited property in the name of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties at the time of the registration of transfer of each ownership of the instant case. There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff (appointed party) is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case was made temporarily in the process of having only the title of ownership of the instant real estate in order for the designated parties E to engage in public work, and the termination of the designated parties E’s public work is a condition for cancellation.