A. In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 as well as the entire arguments, Defendant B entered into a donation contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 20, 208. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the instant donation to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, the above defendant asserts that the contract of this case was a gift with a burden on the condition that the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother gather Nonparty E, and that the contract of this case was cancelled on the ground that the plaintiff's non-performance of the above conditions.

First, as to whether the gift contract of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother D is a gift with a burden on the condition that the non-party E is gathered, whether the other party bears a separate obligation on the gift (Article 561 of the Civil Act), or whether the other party agrees to assume a separate obligation on the gift, shall be proved by the person who asserts the existence thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010). The evidence of each of the above defendant's submission alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above defendant's assertion on the remainder is without merit.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B had registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 350 million with respect to the entire shares of Defendant B, including the instant real estate, to Defendant C. However, the Defendants were in an internal relationship with each other, and Defendant C traded money from May 2, 2012 to April 23, 2014, such as remitting the total amount of KRW 13.8 million to Defendant B. The instant real estate was the real estate.