1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part to be cited in the following sub-paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. As follows, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been completely used, shall consist of between 10 and 15 on the 6th one.

① The Network D stated that the Defendants, who are the ASEAN, of the instant real estate, were in favor of themselves. Around March 1985, the Defendants donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendants. Since the death of the network D, the network E made an inheritance consultation and division with the consent of other children, including the Plaintiff, and decided to be owned by the Defendants.

Accordingly, the defendants completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case based on the Act on Special Measures.

Therefore, the Defendants acquired ownership of each of the instant real estate due to the gift of the network D or the division of inherited property on or around July 25, 1992, where the network D died on or around March 1985, and thus, the presumption of presumption under the Act on the Special Measures for Family Affairs is recognized. Even if the presumption of presumption under the Act on the Special Measures for Family Affairs is not recognized, each of the instant registrations, etc. in the name of the Defendants are valid

The 7th to 7th of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the substantive contents of a guarantee certificate and a written confirmation as stipulated in the Act on Special Measures for the Change of Rights as to each real estate of this case, and the Defendants asserted that ① a donation from the network D around March 1985 or ② a donation from the network D around July 25, 1992 through an inheritance consultation and division around July 25, 1992 acquired each real estate of this case.

First, we examine whether the deceased D donated each of the instant real estate to the Defendants around March 1985.

In full view of the partial description of No. 7 of the evidence No. 7 and the testimony and the overall purport of the oral argument of the witness of the party concerned, the network E, which is not the network D, around March 1985.