1. The defendant dated January 3, 198 as to each of the plaintiffs' shares of 1/4 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the provisional number), the plaintiffs and the defendant, who are siblingss, agreed to transfer each of the real estate of this case owned by the defendant to the plaintiffs one-fourths of shares, respectively (hereinafter the agreement of this case) upon consultation on distribution of various additional points including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the real estate of this case), together with D, mother-friendly E, women's material F, and convict G as of January 3, 198.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the agreement of this case with respect to each of the instant real estate 1/4 shares.

2. Defendant’s defense, etc.

A. The defendant's defense that the period for performance expires after the deadline for performance. The defendant's defense to the effect that the contract of this case was invalidated since the contract of this case was implemented until January 31, 198, but did not comply with the above deadline.

According to the evidence No. 5 No. 5, the content of the agreement on allocation of property at the time of the agreement of this case shall be arranged on January 31, 198.

Although it can be recognized the fact that the above agreement was concluded, it does not appear to have determined the due date of the obligation and to have been invalidated if it was not performed by the above due date, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is a defense to the effect that the extinctive prescription expired after the lapse of 10 years from January 31, 1988, the due date for the plaintiffs' right to claim for ownership transfer registration.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the agreement of this case has expired since 10 years from January 31, 198, the due date, as the obligatory claim.

On the other hand, however, the statement of No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3 and the witness G's testimony are made.