1. Defendant E is the cause of donation on April 21, 1996 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/12 of each land listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s attached G (the deceased on March 21, 2007, hereinafter “the deceased”) owned 3726 square meters prior to H in Jeju. The instant land was divided on April 26, 1996 from the said land.

B. After the division on April 26, 1996, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the ground of “the donation on April 21, 1996,” with respect to the land of H orchard 2050 square meters (hereinafter “H land”).

C. On November 8, 2016, the deceased’s own consciousness inherited one-fourths of the deceased’s property, the deceased, the Plaintiff, J, and K inherited one-fourths of the deceased’s property. On November 8, 2016, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the inheritor was completed.

The defendants inherited the net I's own property as the type of the net I's own consciousness in 1/3 shares.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 statements (if there are serial numbers, including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the claimant donated H land on April 21, 1996 to the plaintiff and also donated the land of this case together, the defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above donation with respect to each of the shares of 1/12 of the above land among the above land.

B. Determination 1) Since Defendant E does not dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant E is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on April 21, 1996 with respect to shares of 1/12 of the instant land on the ground of donation on April 21, 1996. 2) It is insufficient to recognize that the deceased donated the instant land to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul is accepted on the ground of its reasoning. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul and defendant D is dismissed on the ground of its reasoning. It is so decided as per Disposition.