1. The Plaintiff, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B, with respect to the share of 3/9, Defendant C, D, and E, with respect to each share of 2/9.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on September 5, 2015.

Defendant B is the wife of the Deceased, and Defendant C, D, and E are the offspring of the Deceased.

B. The Deceased was diagnosed by brain stroke around 1984.

C. On February 12, 1992, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”). From around that time to March 2015, the Plaintiff was living together with the Deceased in the said apartment and was on a household work for the Deceased.

On March 5, 2013, the Deceased agreed to the Plaintiff that the instant apartment will be provided to the Plaintiff in return for providing the Plaintiff with care and nursing. The Deceased prepared a document stating that the instant apartment will be provided to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, Gap evidence No. 12-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 12-2, and Gap evidence No. 13, the result of appraiser G's writing and seal appraisal, the result of the defendant's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the deceased agreed on March 5, 2013 to transfer the instant apartment to the Plaintiff in return for the Plaintiff to serve as a family government and a nursing. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B, as to the 3/9 share of the attached real estate, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of a payment agreement on March 5, 2013 as to the 2/9 share of the attached real estate, and Defendant C, D, and E, as to each of the 2

3. The Defendants asserted that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Deceased already paid the Plaintiff’s reasonable price for household labor and nursing by bearing the Plaintiff’s living cost, and that the Plaintiff is suspected to withdraw and use the deceased’s deposit without permission. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim

It is not enough to acknowledge the above assertion only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 10, No. 4-1 and No. 2, and it is possible to acknowledge it differently.