beta
Text
1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 1, (2), (3), (4), (5), (5), (7), (8), and (9) of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and D, around October 5, 1981, jointly purchased the Plaintiff’s share of 529/55 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and completed the registration of co-ownership with the Plaintiff’s share of 529/55 and D’s share of 26/55.
B. On December 20, 1993, the Plaintiff and D agreed that the Plaintiff shall own and use the relevant part of the instant land in accordance with the aforementioned agreement, on the following grounds: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (1), (1), (2), (1), (3), (4), (1) the portion of the ship (A), which connects each point in sequence to D, and (529 square meters of the remaining part of the road.
C. D’s death on June 1, 2012, and the Defendant succeeded to D’s entire share in the instant land. Since then, on December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement that recognizes D’s share in the instant land as owned by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2 (the defendant asserts that the agreement of Gap evidence 1-1 was forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits was made between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the land of this case, and the plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit of this case was brought in violation of this provision.
According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1-2, the plaintiff and the defendant made a written agreement on December 4, 2014, the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant stated the provision that "the claim for partition of the article jointly owned (2014dan30130) shall be withdrawn and shall not file a lawsuit again twice."
However, the overall purport of the above agreement is to confirm the parts owned by the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the land of this case and to divide it according to its contents, and it is not a lawsuit if such agreement is implemented, but the above agreement has not been implemented properly.