1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2016, Nonparty C (hereinafter “the deceased”) was transferred to the emergency room of the Korea University Ansan Hospital on September 18, 2016, and was in the state of anti-coma or congested (coma). On September 21, 2016, Nonparty C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died of cerebrovascular due to cerebrovascular, a prior death, and cerebrsy for direct death.

B. Around September 19, 2016, the Defendant, who was the birth of the deceased, attempted to visit the emergency room of the Ansan Hospital at around 18:15, where the deceased had half or mixed water, to affix the deceased’s identification.

C. On September 21, 2016, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant was completed on September 21, 2016 with respect to the above-ground E apartment Nos. 1003, 405 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on one parcel, including Dong-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The gift contract(A7) attached to the above application document for registration of transfer of ownership was drafted as of September 19, 2016, and the seal was affixed.

E. On October 16, 2016, the Defendant sold the instant apartment in KRW 173,80,000 to Nonparty F, and received the said purchase price (hereinafter “the instant purchase price”).

F. Meanwhile, on December 5, 1987, the Plaintiff reported as a friendly between the Deceased and Nonparty G on December 5, 1987, but was not a friendly.

G. The Plaintiff: (a) the Deceased and G were divorced on October 14, 1998; and (b) died together with G; (c) after around 2001, the Plaintiff did not contact with the Deceased.

H. The Deceased was supported by the Defendant, or Nonparty H, who was living in a mixed life, and who was related to the deceased.

I. The plaintiff is the only heir of the deceased.

(j) On July 27, 2017, the public prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that “The defendant’s act is likely to be based on the presumption consent or prior consent of the deceased,” on the case that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for forging private documents.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 9, 10, and Eul 11, witness H's testimony and whole pleadings.