beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to the shares of Defendant B and C among each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, 1/9.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Possession relationship of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1) Each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “D real estate”).
Of the 3/9 shares, 3/9 shares were owned by the network E, 2/9 shares were owned by the Plaintiff, and 4/9 shares were owned by the Defendant B. 2) Real estate listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was owned by the network E.
B. Following the deceased on March 17, 2014, the deceased E, including the deceased and the inheritance registration of the deceased on March 17, 2014: ① With respect to the shares 1/9 out of the shares in the name of 3/9 of D real estate, the ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C was completed due to inheritance on May 14, 2014 as the Seoul Central District Court Branch Registry No. 222019, Mar. 17, 2014; ② With respect to the shares 1/3 of the instant apartment, the ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C was completed on March 17, 2014 as the Seoul Central District Court’s registration of the Seoul Central District Court No. 41218, Feb. 24, 2015, with respect to the shares 1/3 of the instant apartment, the ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and Defendant C’s name was completed on March 22, 2014.
C. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant B and C seeking confirmation of the existence of the paternity relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B and C, asserting that there was no parental relation between the said Defendants and the network E, and that there was no parental relation between the said Defendants, and accordingly, the said Defendants filed a counterclaim seeking confirmation of the existence of the paternity relationship with the Seoul Family Court 2014Nu30264, which asserted that there was no parental relation between the Plaintiff and the network E. (2) on December 13, 2016, the said court asserted that there was no parental relation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the network E, and on the other hand, Defendant B and C had a full adoption relation between the Plaintiff and the network.