1. Upon the conjunctive claim that was changed in exchange in this court, Defendant B entered in the Schedule 2, to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The building of this case was newly constructed by the network D (hereinafter "the network"), and the defendant C only performed its duties under the delegation agreement between the deceased and the defendant C, and did not bear new construction costs.

Since the original acquisitor of the instant building is the deceased, registration of ownership preservation in the name of Defendant C on July 12, 2001 or registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B on October 9, 2002 based thereon is all null and void.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the recovery of real name as to the respective inheritance shares of the instant building ( Q, R, S, T, U, V, and C, respectively, 2/17 and 3/17) by the deceased’s heir.

B) In addition, the Deceased donated the instant building to the Plaintiff on August 2009, which was the birth day. Therefore, the Defendant B transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is the initial acquisition of the instant building by constructing new Defendant C, from December 25, 2014 to December 24, 2018.

The Deceased did not construct the instant building, and there was no fact that he donated the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. The registration of initial ownership of a building is presumed to be a valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and a person, other than the registrant, newly constructed a building.