beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) was owned by the network K (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased died on January 10, 2019, and Defendant H, Defendant E, D, G, and wife, are the legal successors of the deceased’s property (hereinafter referred to as “the instant successors”).
B. The statutory inheritance shares of Plaintiffs and I, Defendants E, D, and G are 2/17 shares, respectively, and the statutory inheritance shares of Defendant H are 3/17.
C. I was declared bankrupt on March 18, 2019 by filing a petition for bankruptcy with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 18Hadan5236.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiffs asserted as the cause of the instant claim. On January 26, 2019, the Plaintiff solely inherited the instant 1 through 5 real estate among the instant inheritors, and the instant 6,7 real estate was jointly inherited at the ratio of 1/3 shares by Defendant D, Plaintiff B, and C, and thus, the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”). Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim.
B. We examine whether the instant agreement on the division of inherited property was effective among the instant inheritors.
According to the evidence No. 3, although the seal of the heir of this case is affixed to the letter of agreement on the division of inherited property (Evidence No. 3, hereinafter referred to as the "written agreement on division of inherited property of this case") on January 26, 2019, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case was legitimate among the heirs of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, evidence Nos. 3, 4, 10, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7, 28, .