1. The defendant is among each land listed in the separate sheet:

A. As to the 11/44 shares of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased E died on August 22, 2016. The heir has the following: H, I, J, Defendant D, K (each inheritance share 1/20), the plaintiff A (1/4) who is a woman of the deceased Furine (Death on May 21, 1991), N,O, P, C, and the deceased (Death on March 26, 1986)'s spouse M (the inheritance share 3/44 of the deceased on February 27, 1994), N, P, and the deceased (the inheritance share 2/44 of the deceased).

B. The net E completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 1975 with respect to Q, Q, Q, 869 square meters on the ground of sale on April 24, 1975, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on R, 1974 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on R, P and R, 1974 square meters on the ground of sale on March 29, 1974.

C. On November 14, 2005, the deceased E completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) on each of the instant lands as the Defendant and the maximum debt amount as KRW 200 million, and on November 10, 2005, on November 10, 2005.

The Defendant applied for a voluntary auction of real estate on each of the instant lands to Suwon District Court S, based on the instant right to collateral security, and the said court rendered a decision on the voluntary auction of each of the instant lands on September 25, 2009.

In the above auction case, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale by voluntary auction on March 16, 2010 after winning each of the lands of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

A. At the time of establishing a mortgage on each of the instant lands asserted by the Plaintiff, the network E had a high level of dementia capacity, and thus, the above mortgage contract is null and void, and it is invalid as it is false and invalid.

Therefore, since the transfer registration of ownership by the defendant, which was based on the above false mortgage, is null and void, it shall be cancelled, and the defendant shall be the plaintiffs.