1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 1999, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the gift on October 27, 1999 with respect to the 2051m20,051m2 (hereinafter “E land”).

B. On December 9, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on December 8, 2005, 2005, with respect to the Plaintiff’s D 440 square meters (hereinafter “D land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on December 8, 2005.

C. On February 21, 2014, Defendant B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on land E to Defendant C on February 7, 2014.

The plaintiff is the father of defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the health status of Defendant B aggravated due to the stroke used in around 1998 and the unknown state for a considerable period of time. As such, Defendant B’s abuse of the aforementioned situation and arbitrarily forged relevant documents regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land based on donation, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name on the instant land is null and void, and that the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name on the instant land is based on the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name

B. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, the disputing party must assert and prove the grounds for invalidation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da215823, Aug. 27, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 97Da2993, Jun. 24, 1997). In light of the following, the following: (a) Domination; (b) entry of the evidence No. 1; and (c) fact-finding with the head of the Dong of this court; and (d) the fact-finding with the head of