2. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

3...

A. In around 1985, the Plaintiff sent birth to Defendant B, and among them, ID and J E respectively.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff maintained a legal marital relationship with K and had children L/H. However, the Plaintiff continued to prepare a house residing for Defendant B and his/her children, or subsidize educational expenses and living expenses.

C. The Plaintiff transferred the franchise operation right located in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant B, thereby allowing Defendant B to cover educational expenses and living expenses for the child’s children’s children’s child’s profits.

Defendant B and her mother are occupying in the instant real estate while operating the telecom. D.

H On September 8, 2015, the Seoul Family Court issued a petition for a trial to commence adult guardianship with the Plaintiff as the principal in the instant case as the Seoul Family Court Decision 2015Ra8543, and on November 25, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “I shall commence adult guardianship against the Plaintiff. I shall be appointed as the Plaintiff’s adult guardian.”

D and E filed an appeal against this issue and continued the appellate trial as of the closing date of the pleadings of the instant case (Seoul Family Court 2015B30107), and on July 8, 2016, the Seoul Family Court issued an order to take measures with regard to the performance of the duties by a temporary guardian (Seoul Family Court 2016 businessz639) (Seoul Family Court 2015B30107) and on August 22, 2016, that “H permits the conduct of the instant litigation and appointment of attorneys on behalf of the Plaintiff” (Seoul Family Court 2016DJ 51339).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 30, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had Defendant B use the instant real estate without compensation, but terminated the loan agreement with Defendant B by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.