beta
Text
1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:
A. Of the 205 square meters in Ansan-si I, it is marked with annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking into account the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 8 to 10, and 12 (including paper numbers), witness testimony as a whole, and witness testimony as a whole:
The deceased M of Party Status (Death on November 1, 1962) and the Plaintiff were children of the network N (Death on May 18, 201) and the network N was married with the networkO, and the Defendant B, C, D, and net P (Death on January 5, 1964), and net Q (Death on August 10, 1990) were children, and the network Q was married with Defendant E, thereby having Defendant F, G, and H as children.
B. The ownership relationship of the pertinent land is 1) An Icheon-gu Mayang-gu Mayang-si 205 square meters (hereinafter “I land”)
(2) On September 4, 1965, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff and the Dong N on September 9, 1994 in the name of the Plaintiff and the Dong N. 2) on the land of 2146 square meters (hereinafter “K land”) in Manan-si, Manan-si and Manan-si.
3) The J-si is one hundred forty-four square meters (hereinafter “J-si”).
(C) On September 9, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the network N.O. B, C, and D. The agreement and receipt No. 1) of the Plaintiff and the deceased N’s heir around April 2005 under the name of the networkO, Defendant B, C, and D as follows, and if the stamp image affixed on the previous agreement is displayed by his seal, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image was created, i.e., the act of signing the stamp image was based on the will of the holder of the title, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, it is presumed that the authentic copy of the document was made in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003), and there is no dispute between the parties concerned in light of the legal principles as seen above.
As to this, Defendant B, C, and D have asserted to be forged:
2.(b).