1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Between the deceased I (Death on December 17, 2012) and the deceased JJ (Death on January 13, 2015), there are South-Nam K (the Defendant’s referring), the South-Nam net L (Death on January 7, 2007), 3 South-Nam, D, 4 South, and 5 South Korea Plaintiff F. The Plaintiff A is the deceased L’s wife, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, and the Defendant is the children of the deceased L.

B. On June 2, 2011, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the network I (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was transferred to the Defendant on June 7, 201 under the receipt of No. 17127 on June 7, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Around June 2, 2011, M and the Defendant, who is the wife of K and I of the Plaintiffs asserted by the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant: (a) had the I, who had been fluenced due to the inconvenience of moving to the elderly disease, flucing 2 illness, and caused almost little ability to be able to be able to breacated and judged; (b) he was issued I’s personal seal impression due to the Defendant’s driver’s identification card, etc. using the I’s seal under custody to the adjacent Dong office; and (c) registered the transfer of the ownership of the instant real estate due to the gift through the A’s seal under custody.

Therefore, since the above ownership transfer registration is registration of invalidity of cause, the defendant is obligated to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the restoration of real name in relation to the plaintiffs' respective shares in inheritance of the real estate in this case to the deceased's heir or substitute heir.

3. Determination Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including each number) and plaintiff F's personal examination result alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant under the above condition that I had no mental capacity at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed for all reasons.