1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendants are 7/130. 7/130. 7/130.

1. The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6, 7, Gap evidence 11-1 through 4, and Gap evidence 23-1 through 5. The whole purport of the arguments is examined.

On September 14, 1973, the net F acquired ownership of D & 63 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. The deceased on July 30, 1987, and the deceased on July 30, 1987, the deceased on his/her spouse deceased, and the deceased, G, net C, and his/her son H and son I were married in the same family register.

C. On August 28, 1987, the deceased J resumed with K and died on May 11, 2005. The deceased’s heir, who is the above spouse K and his child, had Plaintiff A, G, net C, H, and I.

On April 26, 2016, the network C signed and sealed the agreement on donation with the purport that “I/5 shares of each of the instant land and the instant L-based L-based L are donated” (hereinafter “instant agreement on donation”) and delivered it to A.

E. The deceased C died on August 14, 2018 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and the Defendants, a child, taken over the instant legal proceedings.

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. 1) As long as the authenticity of the interpretation of the gift agreement of this case is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even in the case of a disposal document, if it is acknowledged that there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the statement, it may recognize facts different from the content of the statement, and in interpreting a legal act of the originator, it may be decided with free evaluation within the extent not contrary to the empirical rules and logical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34643, Apr. 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, health class and the Plaintiff’s statement of the gift agreement of this case may be written in light of the foregoing legal principles.