1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 1990, the network E completed the registration of ownership preservation on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”).

The deceased on July 11, 2009, the deceased on February 20, 2014, and the deceased on February 20, 2014, G, a child of the deceased E, renounced the inheritance of the deceased E and F.

Accordingly, the Defendants, who are children of the network E, inherited the trust property of the network E in 1/3.

B. The deceased died on May 14, 2003 while living in the instant housing, and the Plaintiff inherited the instant housing upon the division of inherited property on January 20, 201.

C. Meanwhile, on May 23, 2009, the network E sold the instant housing in KRW 150,000,000 to I, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 10, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 19, 1982, the Plaintiff asserted that, while constructing the apartment house including the instant housing, the Plaintiff agreed to pay in lieu of the repayment of the debt owed to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to sell the instant housing to 150,000,000 won and completed the registration of ownership transfer to I on May 23, 2009, the Defendants, the heir of the network E, are liable to pay the Plaintiff the damages for nonperformance and delay damages.

B. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence No. 5 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased E entered into an accord and satisfaction agreement with the deceased He merely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 6, 9, and 10. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the fact that the network E made a payment arrangement to the network H, is without any need to further examine the remaining points.