1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff each share indicated in the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership shares in the separate sheet among the 2,939 square meters of K forest land in Yasan-si.

Basic Facts

The forests and fields specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”) were forests and fields owned by the network L (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

As Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and Non-Party deceased’s children, the deceased died on February 20, 1992, and as the deceased’s wife died on December 17, 2013, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and Non-Party Network M succeeded to one seventh of each of the instant forests and fields from the deceased on December 17, 2013.

The Non-party deceased on March 14, 2014, and Defendant H, I, and J inherited the network M in 1/3 shares, respectively.

[A] The share of Defendant H, I, and J in the instant forest is 1/21 (i.e., 1/7 x 1/3). The Plaintiff reported marriage on March 10, 1973 with Defendant E and divorced on August 11, 1998.

On December 16, 1987, the Plaintiff and the Deceased concluded a sales contract with the content that the Deceased sell the instant forest to the Plaintiff for KRW 28,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 8-1, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 9-1, 2-2, 9-2, and appraiser's appraisal result, and the judgment of the court below as to the ground for claim as a whole. According to the sales contract of this case, the deceased is obligated to perform the plaintiff's procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case under the plaintiff's name according to the sales contract of this case, and the defendants who inherited the forest of this case according to each inheritance shares listed in the attached table of co-ownership of the defendants are obligated to perform the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the forest of this case under the plaintiff's name according to

The Defendants asserted that, during that period, the Plaintiff did not present the original copy of the instant sales contract (No. 2). However, the Defendants asserted that they forged and submitted the instant sales contract to the extent that they were requested by the Defendants to present the original copy of the sales contract.

However, according to the appraiser's appraisal result, the sales contract of this case was prepared around 1987, when the above sales contract was concluded.