1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D was under circumstances on August 10, 1911 (hereinafter “instant land”) as indicated in Section 1 of the Attached List No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant B’s father, Nonparty E, and Defendant C, on June 30, 1984, completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) in the name of D with respect to the land of this case on the ground that the said land was donated by the said D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the said Act as to each share due to the gift made by March 5, 1972 on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of this case”). (c)

The above E died on April 3, 2004, and the defendant B completed the registration of transfer on July 2, 2014 for the entire shares of the above E due to the inheritance due to the consultation division as of April 3, 2004.

On the other hand, the land listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) was owned by Nonparty F. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 18, 1955 due to the sale and purchase as of January 10, 1946 by Defendant C’s father G and father E of the above Defendant B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 9, 2001 due to the inheritance by agreement division as of October 31, 1983. The registration of ownership transfer for the entire shares of the above G was completed on July 2, 201 due to the inheritance by agreement division as of April 3, 2004.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 7, 1949, the plaintiff's capital increase, died (in the family register, death on May 7, 1965). In 1972, where Eul and the defendant C donated the land of this case from the above D, the above D did not continue to exist, and even if D was the grandchild who is a lineal descendant, there was no reason to donate the said land to E, etc., and the defendants made clear about the process of acquiring the said land.