beta
Text
1. The part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership against the defendant is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall attach attached Form 2 to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 (including the number with each supplementary number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence No. 2:
Attached Form
The land cadastre of each real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) is indicated as the assessment of H (H) on May 1, 1915, and the address of H is not indicated.
B. The permanent domicile of the above H is “Seoul-do Hai-gun I” such as No. 1, one of the real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 1, one of the instant real estates.
C. Meanwhile, as to the instant real estate, the Defendant respectively made registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) No. 28533 on September 13, 2007, No. 28533 on the receipt number, pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (No. 7500, Jan. 1, 2006; hereinafter “Special Assistance Act”).
This is made on the premise that H, who is a person in charge of the circumstances of the instant real estate as seen earlier, is the father of the defendant.
According to the statement of the original copy, H (referred to as "J" in J, hereinafter referred to as "J") and the permanent domicile of the person at his/her own will is Jeonnam-do K.
E. The deceased on August 21, 1939 and succeeded to Australia by the deceased L. The deceased on April 15, 1948 and succeeded to Australia by the deceased M. The deceased on January 20, 198, and the deceased on January 20, 198 inherited the deceased M’s wife N and the plaintiffs. The deceased on January 20, 198 inherited the deceased’s wife N and the plaintiffs as the same shares.
(The Defendant’s assertion on “Succession” or “qualified for the plaintiff,” which goes against the fact finding that two children were more children than the Plaintiffs, but died before the deceased M), is rejected as erroneous or misunderstanding the legal principles.
F. The instant real estate is the plaintiffs.