1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. D is a leader. Since around 1988, D established C company in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and purchased buildings listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) on May 9, 2001, by accepting new cities’ city owners, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D on May 10, 2001, D transferred the instant building to the instant building and had engaged in spreading activities.

B. Around 2010, D had found a third party for the appointment of a new chief executive officer for C's death as 80 years of age.

On the other hand, on December 27, 2010, the defendant introduced him as the President General of the Office of General Affairs of G Religious Organizations to D on December 27, 2010, which was located in Busan Metropolitan City, and told C to develop C History as H’s intent and E-research center. D followed a wedding that the defendant is a third party around April 201.

C. Thereafter, on April 26, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant was completed as of April 26, 201 by the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) as of April 26, 201, received on April 26, 2011.

D On March 28, 2013, asserting that the registration of ownership transfer of this case was invalid, D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of this case (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gadan85453), and the above court rendered a ruling dismissing D’s claim on the ground that D’s donation of the building of this case to the Defendant on February 11, 2014 was valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relations.

Accordingly, while filing an appeal by D, (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na15698) added the argument that D’s above donation contract was revoked on the ground of fraud or mistake, since it was deceiving or erroneously caused the conclusion of the donation contract on the building of this case. However, the above court rejected D’s above assertion on November 20, 2014, and rendered a ruling dismissing D’s appeal.