1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following dismissals or additions. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The list of real estate in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted "6. Gyeonggi-gun Y-gun 298 square meters".

On the fourth to nineth of the decision of the court of first instance, the next third to nine shall be followed as follows.

2. On July 22, 2009, Defendant B sold the instant land to AF and AG as the principal and the legal representatives of Defendant C and D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 14, 2009.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Deceased has a duty to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land to E in accordance with the instant agreement, and the Defendants inherited the above obligation to register ownership transfer. Nevertheless, the Defendants sold the instant land to another person, thereby making it impossible for the Defendants to perform the obligation to register ownership transfer of the instant land. 2) The Plaintiff acquired the damage claim due to nonperformance of the obligation to register ownership transfer from E, and the Defendants claim for the payment of the amount equivalent to each inheritance share out of KRW 498,206,00, which is the market value of the instant land.

B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The instant agreement is invalid as it constitutes an agreement on the division of inherited property by the remaining inheritors, excluding one co-inheritors, where there is no damage claim based on the instant agreement.

B) On June 11, 2013, E withdrawn from the instant agreement, and thus, E lost the right to the instant land based on the instant agreement, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the right to the instant land from E on September 24, 2013 constitutes the time of acquisition of the right already extinguished. (ii) The Defendants are not effective.