1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant I, including the preliminary claim added by this court, is as follows.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that J (1934 birth) was sleeped from his/her children in the Gu and Si/Gu. However, from October 20, 2006 to February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in cleaning, prompting, preparing meals, providing out-of-the-job assistance, care, etc. to the J, and attempted to purchase out-of-job items with the Plaintiff’s funds.

The exchange contract and the Plaintiff concluded an exchange contract with the Plaintiff, prior to the birth of the J, that the Plaintiff provided the said nursing services to the J and concluded that the J would transfer the Plaintiff’s ownership of 1,167 square meters of old-si Lies (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, as the J died without fulfilling the above exchange contract, the heir of J completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case as co-ownership by Defendant B, Defendant G, and Defendant I through the agreement on division of inherited property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to a third party.

Therefore, the Defendants, the successors of J, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above exchange contract to the Plaintiff, but the above obligation is impossible. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the inheritance shares of the Defendants out of the value of the instant land (50 million won).

B. The gift agreement and the tort compensation judicial council agreed to donate the instant land to the Plaintiff before the birth in return for the Plaintiff’s above nursing, care, etc.

However, as the J died without fulfilling the above donation agreement, the heir of J completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case through the agreement on division of inherited property by Defendant B, Defendant G, and Defendant I, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to a third party.

Therefore, the Defendants, the successors of J, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above gift agreement to the Plaintiff, but the above obligation is impossible. Thus, the Defendants are the Plaintiff.