beta
Text
1. Upon a claim for a change in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate stated in attached Table 8.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of these facts, and the reasoning of the judgment is the same from 12 to 48 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Supplementary or additional parts] In the front of the 3rd 4th Maho-ho, the first instance court’s decision, “at the time, it was one building that did not have a separate registration at the time.”
After the 10th 10th 10th 207, the commercial building in this case was divided into each building listed in the separate sheet 1 to 7, and added "the same day."
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. Part 1 concerning the first sale contract of this case between the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 and the Defendant is null and void. Accordingly, since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was null and void, the first sale contract of this case at the time of the death of the Defendant was owned by the referring. Thus, the first sale contract of this case was null and void. Thus, the first sale contract of this case was owned by the referring. Thus, upon the death of the referring, the referring’s 3/15 shares out of the legally inherited shares was succeeded to 1/6 shares (i.e., the 1/30 shares of the entire 1 real estate of this case), among the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff inherited the 1/6 shares (i.e., the 1/30 shares of the entire 1 real estate of this case). Accordingly, the Defendant, the title holder of the first sale contract of this case
The defendant asserts that the first sale contract of this case was the most effective act and its substance constitutes a gift contract.
According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 30, and Eul evidence 30, the defendant remitted a total of KRW 645 million to the accounts referred to in the name of the defendant from March 22, 2011 to April 26, 2011, and immediately withdrawn KRW 600,000 among them on April 26, 201.