1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 1968, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the deceased C on the ground of the sale of the real estate No. 1 in this case on or around September 23, 1968, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant A, an infant of the deceased, on the ground of the inheritance by consultation division on or around March 26, 1997. As to the real estate No. 2 in this case, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the deceased on the ground of the sale on or around December 3, 1968 on the ground of the inheritance by consultation division on or around March 26, 197.

B. On March 9, 2005, Defendant A entered into a gift agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with respect to each of the instant real estate.

C. Defendant A entered into a gift agreement with Defendant B on March 11, 2015 with respect to each of the instant real estate, and completed each registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B on April 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate in order to create D, which is a cause for the exclusive funeral of the residents of the North Korean Peninsula, and conducted title trust in the name of the deceased.

Around March 9, 2005, the Plaintiff terminated the title trust on each real estate of this case, and entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on each real estate of this case to receive a return of the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The land category of each of the instant real estate was a dry field and could not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff continuously occupied and managed each of the instant real estate for D re-management.

C. Therefore, even though Defendant A had a duty to complete the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above donation agreement, in collusion with Defendant B, who is well aware of such fact, concluded a donation agreement with Defendant B on each of the instant real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B.

Then.