1. Revocation of the first instance judgment. A.

The plaintiffs' claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendants of this case.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “No. 1039 of the No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance” (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) and “No. 1039 of the No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the “No. 1 of the deceased L was designated as the executor; hereinafter the “instant No. notarial deed”) are the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the part.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the claim for ownership transfer registration of this case) The plaintiff bequeathed 1/2 of shares of 1/3 of the instant orchard to the plaintiffs through the notarial deed of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiffs have the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the pertinent shares out of the instant orchard according to the deceased L's legacy. Accordingly, the defendants asserted to the effect that "the deceased L made the notarial deed of this case by intimidation, etc. at the time, and there is no validity of testamentary gift, and I made the notarial deed of this case unfairly prepare the notarial deed of this case without sufficiently explaining the contents of testamentary gift by using the h's symptoms with dementia." However, there is no evidence to deem that the deceased prepared the notarial deed of this case at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, or at the time of defective intention due to intimidation, etc., the defendants purchased the instant orchard of this case, and there is no amount equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 won and KRW 3130,000,00.30.

Therefore, the actual share of the network L among the instant orchard is not 1/3 but 150/719, and the remainder is considered as the title trust.