1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,196,935,307 as well as 5% per annum from December 31, 2015 to October 31, 2018 as to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased C and the deceased as a legal couple on September 21, 2009, and the deceased on July 7, 2015 (EE; hereinafter “the deceased”).

As the inheritor of the deceased, there are the Plaintiff and the Defendant as their children.

B. After the death of C, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased and the defendant on the ground that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the land listed in paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) in the separate sheet (hereinafter the “instant land”) was inherited by agreement and division with respect to 1/2 shares among the instant land and the instant building (the combination of the instant land and the instant building).

C. On November 7, 2011, the Deceased prepared a testamentary document stating that “if the Defendant dies before the time of the will, he/she shall testament the entire shares of the deceased among the instant real estate to the Defendant, and shall testament the instant real estate to G, who is the Defendant’s children” (hereinafter “instant testamentary document”).

On November 11, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on testamentary gift on July 7, 2015 with respect to the deceased’s share among the instant real property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion by an authentic will of this case (hereinafter “instant will”), the Deceased had no capacity to understand the intent and effect of the will in the state of dementia.

In addition, since it is impossible to communicate normally, the intent of a will was not in a state to accept it, and it does not meet the method of a will prescribed in the Civil Act because it is impossible for a notary public to hear reading due to an inception. The will of this case is null and void.

Therefore, the reason is the same.