1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the court’s determination of the selective claims added in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the decision of the court of first instance, except as stated in Section 2 below. As such, this court’s determination is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

He/she shall revise "children's children's children's children's children's children's children's(hereinafter referred to as "the defendants' children's children's children") at the second bottom of the judgment of the first instance."

The three pages of the judgment of the first instance court shall be amended to the "Tax Office of the Gyeyang Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Office") under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff."

Article 2,589,96,450 won (“2,429,640 won”) of the first instance judgment (“2,429,640,210 won additional charges of KRW 160,640,240,210”) shall be amended “2,429,640,210 won [1,452,05,146 won additional taxes of KRW 580,80,802,058 due to failure to make a report” and “2,589,96,450 won” at the bottom of the same 3rd instance judgment shall be amended “2,429,640,210 won”, respectively.

Part 5 of the first instance court's five pages "Nos. 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 15" shall be amended as "Nos. 2, 5, 9 through 12, and 15", and "L, etc." of the same part shall be amended as "L, etc.".

The 7th 1 and 2th 7th 7th 1 and 2th 3th 1st 1st 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 500 500

approximately 3 years of the decision of the court of first instance shall be revised to approximately 3 years and 7 months ( approximately 1 year and 7 months from the date on which the real estate in this case was donated to the appointed party D, E, and F).

2. Determination as to the selective claims added in the trial

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C is as follows: (a) since around July 2007, the symptoms of dementia worse; and (b) there was no intent and ability to discern things at the time of the gift act in this case; (c) thus, each gift agreement entered into between C and the Defendants is null and void as a juristic act by a person without mental capacity; and (d)