1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance also maintain the “certificate of forgery regarding the instant one inheritance share transfer contract (Evidence A 3)” asserted in the court of first instance.

In general, a private document is presumed to be authentic when it is signed, sealed, or stamped by the person or his/her agent (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily signed, sealed, or stamped the private document, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-written evidence, etc. In cases where the establishment of the portion of the stamp image, etc. is recognized, barring other special circumstances, the document shall be presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixed by the person who prepared the document at the time when the whole or part of the document is completed. Unless there are other special circumstances, the circumstances such as the fact that the person who signed the document first signed, sealed, or affixed the seal at the time when the whole or part of the document was completed shall be deemed to fall under this case. Therefore, if it is possible to presume the authenticity of the document as a completion document,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406 Decided April 11, 2003, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendants directly signed the above notarial deed. Meanwhile, the Defendants signed the above notarial deed in blank to the effect that “the Plaintiff agrees to temporarily reside in J’s house,” and the Plaintiff voluntarily stated that “the Defendant shall transfer the inheritance shares of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.” However, even if the first instance court’s evidence and the evidence added by this court are closely examined, it is insufficient to recognize that the above notarial deed was forged, such as the Defendants’ assertion.