1. Of the Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant C, each of the real estate listed in [Attachment 4, 6, and 8] of [Attachment 1].

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 3-18, and 10-1 through 6, unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

1) The relationship between the parties is one of the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff (V) and Defendant B (C) died as his heir on February 25, 2013. (2) Defendant C and D are children of Defendant B.

B. The transfer of ownership of real estate 1) Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was owned by the deceased (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

As indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C, and D, each ownership transfer registration for Defendant C and D was completed. (2) As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 of the F on July 13, 2015, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 8, the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 6 of the G on March 5, 2015, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From 1999, the Deceased’s occupational ability began to suffer from dementia, and from around 2003, the degree of the deceased’s occupational ability was so serious that the deceased’s occupational ability could not suffer from dementia at all.

B. Defendant B’s primary claim 1) abused that he did not have the ability to distinguish the part of the deceased to the deceased, and transferred the ownership of each of the instant real estate in the future to Defendant C and D, one of his own children. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate was null and void, and the Plaintiff succeeded to one-half of each of the instant real estate. As such, Defendant B, as an act of preservation of the jointly-owned property, sought cancellation of ownership transfer registration on each of the instant real estate, such as Paragraph 1 of the primary claim against Defendant C and D, by abusing that he did not have the capacity to distinguish the part of the deceased, sold each of the instant real estate to KRW 397,380,000 in total without the deceased’s permission, and kept the purchase price after receiving payment.