1. The Defendant shall, on January 1, 1993, sell 1/2 shares of each of the 311 square meters of the D previous 311 square meters to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party A) and the Appointed C at the time of their stay.

1. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the fact that the defendant entered into a donation contract with the deceased E on January 7, 1993 with respect to D 311 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the time of resident stay in the Defendant’s ownership (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and the fact that the deceased on June 18, 2015 and his/her children died on and after the deceased on June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff A and the Selection C inherited the rights and obligations of E, respectively.

B. The Defendant asserts that the gift contract of this case was made on condition that the contract of this case was transferred to a tomb within F at the time of residence, and that the condition was not fulfilled, and thus, the gift contract of this case was null and void.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the gift contract of this case contains the following facts: "The transfer documents and transfer income tax with respect to D shall be responsible for the thickness, and the entrance of G village within F shall be transferred to D."

However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, it can be recognized that the above contents of the above special agreement are cut off, and that the seal affixed on a search line is the same as the seal used by the defendant around that time.

Considering the fact that the Defendant’s request for a funeral to E or the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the instant gift agreement, it is determined that the funeral in the above F land was excluded from the content of the instant gift agreement.

Even if the above special agreement is valid, it is difficult to view the entry of the donation contract of this case alone as a premise for the effectiveness of the donation contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the agreement, regardless of whether the deceased E or the plaintiff on the part of the deceased bears the duty to transfer the tomb of the defendant's land or to accept the transfer of the tomb.

In particular, A.