beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as to this case, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiffs' respective real estate in this case was donated by Defendant C and E at the expense of paying monthly living expenses to the deceased by the time of the deceased's death. Since Defendant C and E failed to perform the above burden, the plaintiffs are the deceased's heir's heir's share in inheritance (cancellation).
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim as the return of the object following the cancellation of the gift contract
B. In the case of the instant 8 real estate, it is difficult to deem that the “donation” was performed, not “trade” as indicated in the grounds for registration, and in the case of the remaining real estate 1 through 7, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the donation contract on each of the instant 8 real estate is an onerous donation contract premised on the burden that Defendant C and E should pay the deceased’s living cost.
Rather, according to the statement No. 1-4 and 5 of the evidence No. 1-5, the fact that “A (Defendant C and E) does not bear any obligation due to this case’s gift” is explicitly stated in the gift contract regarding the real estate No. 1-7 of this case.
(In the case of Plaintiff B, the Defendant C had already asserted as to the instant 1, 2, and 3 real estate before the decedent’s birth, and the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gadan732, which sought the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gadan732, but each gift contract cannot be deemed as a gift contract on December 15, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.