1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 14, 1996 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff (pre-name D) and the Defendant B, respectively, on July 1, 1997 due to the inheritance by consultation and division on June 14, 1996.

B. Since then, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant B on the ground of the donation on June 14, 2006, No. 50122, which was received on June 14, 2006, with respect to the shares of 1/2 owned by the Plaintiff among each of the instant real estate, as to the shares of 1/2, the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”).

C. As to each real estate of this case, the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 53314, Jul. 16, 2014) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the maximum debt amount, which was 200,000,000, with Defendant C as a mortgagee, as the mortgagee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, around 2007, Defendant B issued a certificate of personal seal impression by changing the documents required for each of the instant real estate mortgage loans. Since Defendant B forged a donation contract under the name of the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case, the registration of ownership transfer of this case is null and void. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration of ownership transfer of this case is sought for cancellation of the above collateral security right under Defendant C’s name.

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B forged the Plaintiff’s gift contract in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In conclusion, according to the result of the court’s appraisal commission with respect to appraiser E, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the gift contract attached to the certificate of right to registration of the instant real estate is identical with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereto). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit.