1. The Defendants: (a) on January 25, 2004, share of 24 square meters in each of the 2,757 square meters of G in Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-do, respectively, to the Plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs and H are pro-friendly with the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”), who died on September 23, 2014, and the Defendants are the deceased’s children.

B. On August 11, 1981, the deceased and the non-party J completed the registration of ownership transfer by one half of their respective shares on the ground of the sale on December 7, 1965, with respect to the land of 2,757 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant co-ownership shares”) C.

The Defendants, on December 10, 2014, with respect to the instant land:

9. 23.The co-ownership shares of this case are transferred by inheritance due to the division by agreement and completed the registration of ownership transfer each half of the shares.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, Gap's 13, 14, and 15 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On January 25, 2004, the judgment of the cause of the claim jointly purchased the instant co-ownership of KRW 16 million from H with H, and around that time, the above purchase price was fully paid to the deceased. As such, the Defendants, who are the deceased’s inheritors, are obligated to perform the obligation to transfer ownership on the ground of the above sale contract.

In civil trials, the facts which have been recognized in the related civil cases, even though they are not bound by the facts recognized in the judgments of other civil cases, etc., shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances.

As such, it cannot be rejected without a reasonable ground.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da47292, Jun. 29, 1995). In particular, even if the facts constituting the basis of the dispute coincide with the parties involved, it is more so more so in cases where res judicata has not been effective directly due to the contingency against which the filing of a lawsuit was made.

With respect to this case, there are several numbers of evidence Nos. 10 to 15.