1. The Defendants are located in the 1,132 square meters of land for factory in Osan-si, Gyeonggi-do and are located in the 1,132 square meters of land for factory in Osan-do.

In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and the defendants were lineal descendants of Eul on 1996, and the real estate recorded in the order (hereinafter "land of this case") were inherited on August 18, 1996 through consultation and division as of August 18, 1996, and the registration of ownership transfer of the plaintiff's name was completed on May 30, 2005 under the Registration Office of Suwon District Court No. 70119 on May 30, 2005; the defendant C demanded the plaintiff and the defendant Eul to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the land of two lots, such as the F and Osan City, Osan City, which are jointly owned by them; the plaintiff and the defendant Eul issued documents and seal imprints necessary to respond to the request of the defendant C; but the defendant C did not grant permission as to the land of this case, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff and the defendants should each share ownership registration as to the land of this case.

When the Plaintiff sold the instant land, Defendant C merely made a registration of correction by stating that the Defendants would have agreed to divide the price into two parts, and it is reasonable to jointly share the instant land with the Plaintiff and the Defendants with the inherited property left from the early stage of mediation. As such, Defendant C asserted that the Plaintiff consented to the Plaintiff from Defendant C, but there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff consented to the sale of the instant land. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit, and further, the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of inheritance by agreement division.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the land of this case conforms to the substantive relationship based on the premise that it was inherited from the comparison.

Thus, the defendants are entitled to receive false shares of inheritance without the plaintiff's permission.