1. The defendant is among the real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. As to one sixth portion of each of the plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and E, b.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased N (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 17, 2017, and Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and E are the siblings of the deceased. Plaintiff F, G, H, I, J, K, K and L are the spouses and children of the deceased’s dead net director (the deceased’s death on September 19, 1983). The Defendant and the Deceased completed the marriage report on November 20, 2017.

B. On January 29, 2018, the Defendant, with the deceased’s sole heir, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the plaintiffs' assertion that the marriage between the defendant and the deceased constitutes marriage between blood relatives within the eighth degree of relationship, the defendant should complete the registration of ownership transfer for the apartment of this case to the plaintiffs who are true inheritors according to their inheritance shares.

B. The fact that the Defendant is a blood relative between the deceased and the eighth degree of relationship is no dispute between the parties. The marriage between the Defendant and the deceased is null and void pursuant to Article 815 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act, and accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant is also deemed null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to make the plaintiffs complete the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the apartment of this case in accordance with the inheritance shares (the shares of 1/6 each, the shares of 1/30, the shares of 1/30, Plaintiff G, H, I, J, K, and L: 1/45 each).

C. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1, the defendant asserted that the apartment of this case was trusted in title under the name of the deceased, and that it was returned again, or that it was reported to the defendant by the method to acquire the apartment of this case, and therefore, it constitutes a registration consistent with the substance.

First, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant trusted the instant apartment to the Deceased.

Next, according to the description of No. 3-1, the deceased on November 13, 2017.