1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiffs the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. A. On February 6, 2012, a party status network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died, and the legal heir is the Defendant, A, and B, and C, the wife, and the Plaintiff, B, and C.

B. The Defendant, from around 2005, occupied the instant real estate possession by residing in the real estate indicated in the separate sheet registered in the name of the Deceased (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if a co-owner who owns shares in a land or building held as to the cause of the claim, or a person entitled to the claim for the registration of ownership transfer of such shares, cannot take possession of, and use for profit from, the jointly owned property exclusively without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares held by him/her fall short of a majority, the other co-owners may demand the person who occupies the jointly owned property to deliver the jointly owned property as an act of preservation

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 9408 delivered on March 22, 1994, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, the real estate owned by the deceased was co-owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant, who are their statutory successors, and the plaintiffs can seek delivery of the said real estate as co-owners of the above real estate.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant alleged that the real estate of this case was donated to the deceased before his birth, but it is not sufficient to recognize the evidence of No. 10 only by the statement of No. 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.