1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased on May 25, 2008 (hereinafter “the deceased”). At the time, co-inheritors were Defendant B, who was his wife G, the deceased’s father, and the deceased’s son, and Defendant C was the children of Defendant B, Defendant D, and E.

G died on January 21, 2009.

B. As to the shares of 1/4 of each of the instant real estate owned by the deceased, the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate was completed on March 24, 2008 following the date following the donation.

C. At the time of the deceased’s death, there was no real estate equivalent to the market value of KRW 197,661,020,000,000, which was donated by the Defendants, and as a passive property, there was a secured debt of KRW 20,000,000, which was established regarding each of the instant real estate.

On the other hand, the Deceased donated 35,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on January 20, 1993.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7, 17 through 20, appraiser H's appraisal result, each fact inquiry result of this court with respect to the No. 1 of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case was completed in the state of the deceased's ability to perform his duties, and that the plaintiff, as co-inheritors, sought cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in this case.

The results of each fact-finding with respect to Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including each number), and I's each fact-finding with respect to I's members are insufficient to recognize that the deceased was the state of his/her office ability at the time of the registration of transfer of each ownership of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim and the Plaintiff’s claim for each of the instant claims are not invalid, the Plaintiff’s heir as the deceased’s heir and the Defendants were entitled to the return of legal reserve of inheritance regarding one-eight of shares in each of the instant real estate acquired by the Defendants.