1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "D" of Section 7 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "B" of December 5, 1970, and as such, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Section 1 of the same Article.

On August 5, 2011, the plaintiff's assertion on the cause of the claim and the defendant and J, F, G, H, H, the plaintiff, and I agreed to divide the total amount of 8,372 shares of D's inherited property into 30 shares, F, H, the plaintiff's own shares of D, 1 (1,196 shares), G, the plaintiff's father's father, and 0.5 shares of D, 0.5 shares of D.

On the other hand, 1,599 of the real estate remaining in D’s name divided into five equal parts, 319.8 square meters for male siblings, and 159.9 square meters for female siblings, 0.5 equity shares, and 70,734,500 won for burial ground, and 2/3,156,333 won for the burial ground, and 9,431,266 won for male siblings, and 4,715,63 won for female siblings. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred F the amount of KRW 9,50,000 to F.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on August 5, 201 with respect to share 2,891/6,442 equivalent to the share of 876.2 square meters excluding the 319.8 square meters in inheritance from the 1,196 square meters of land that the Plaintiff should have divided among the 6,442 square meters of land for stock farm in the city of Pakistan among the land for which the registration of ownership transfer is completed under the Defendant’s name.

Judgment

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 11, and 13 and testimony by witness G of the trial party are not sufficient to recognize that there was an agreement as alleged by the plaintiff at any time, whether all inheritors of D participated in the agreement process, and that there was a specific agreement on the inherited property and method, etc. subject to division. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.