1. The Defendants stated the “share in inheritance” column in the attached Table 2, among each real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, to the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

J has completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on November 13, 1961 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The J died on January 5, 1981, and the Defendants and K, the successors, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the relevant shares stated in the attached Table 2 of the instant real estate on November 7, 2017 due to the inheritance of each property.

Defendant B completed the registration of entire share transfer with respect to shares 952/5292 (hereinafter “instant share”) due to the gift made from K on the same day from November 2, 2017 from K on the same day, and the Defendants currently own each corresponding share indicated in the “current Share” column in the attached Table 2 of the present real estate.

On the other hand, on December 31, 1975, the Plaintiff purchased the second 2 mamb in 490,000 won before the answer, and pays 100,000 won on the day the down payment is made, and the remainder shall be paid in quantity.

1. up to 15. Payment shall be made, but full compensation shall be made in the event of default on the contract.

"A sales contract shall be prepared with the content of the sales contract, and L/M as a observer shall be "a sales contract of this case".

The Plaintiff affixed the seal to N. The Plaintiff’s seal. The Plaintiff now leased the instant real estate to N, and N is a rice farmer in the instant real estate. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and the Defendants appear to dispute the authenticity of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number, and the Defendants appears to dispute the authenticity of Gap’s evidence No. 4, and the private document can be used as evidence only when the authenticity is proven, but there is no special restriction as to the method of proof, and even if the taxpayer did not prove the authenticity of the documentary evidence in the instant real estate, the court may recognize its establishment by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, instead of other evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da12070, Apr. 13, 1993), and the content and method of Gap’s evidence No. 4, and the appearance of documents, etc.

written evidence Nos. 1 and 3;