1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are pro-friendly siblings.

B. On May 7, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 7, 2015 under the name of the Defendant for the instant apartment (520,000,000 won).

At the time of purchase, the amount of KRW 240,000,000 of the plaintiffs and the defendant's mother D was born.

Accordingly, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on May 7, 2017 in the name D after the above transfer registration was completed on May 7, 2017.

C. D died on July 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. 1) The Defendant’s purchase of the instant apartment (the Plaintiff revoked the first assertion that the actual purchaser of the instant apartment is network D)

(2) However, if the deceased actually resided in the above apartment, and later money (330,000,000 won) is gathered, D had the right to complete the pre-sale agreement with the defendant on the ground of the pre-sale agreement entered into with the defendant. Accordingly, D had the right to complete the sale and purchase agreement with the defendant on the ground of the pre-sale agreement, and the right to complete the sale and purchase agreement can be inherited by the nature of the right to complete the sale agreement. As D dies, D had the heir owned the pre-sale and the defendant owned the pre-sale agreement, and this constitutes an indivisible claim in its nature. Accordingly, the plaintiffs exercise the right to complete the sale agreement, such as the purport of the claim, to the defendant pursuant to

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration, such as the purport of the claim.

B. 1) Determination 1) In light of the background leading up to the conclusion of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant products as indicated in the instant argument, the background leading up to the conclusion of the promise to sell and purchase the instant products, and the background leading up to the deceased’s age (76 years old) and anticipated future revenues at the time, each of the statements in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2-1 of the evidence No. 6-2 is insufficient without any limit to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ assertion,