1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. G (the Plaintiff and the mother of the Defendants) died on January 3, 2015, and the Plaintiff is the mother of the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is the male, Defendant C is the male, Defendant C is the male, Defendant F is the male, Defendant F is the female, Defendant E is the female, and Defendant D is three female.

B. G owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Paragraph 1 of the attached sheet owned “instant real estate”, and Paragraph 2 of the attached sheet owned “instant real estate” and “instant two real estate” and “Seoul Northern-gu K apartment L, Daegu-gu.

C. On March 13, 200, G bequeathed the instant one real estate owned by it to Defendant B, and a testamentary deed (No. 573, 2000, No. 573, 2000, hereinafter “instant testamentary deed”) was drafted to the effect that the instant two real estate and the instant K apartment L were bequeathed to Defendant C.

Based on the instant testamentary deed on April 30, 2015, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate due to testamentary gift from No. 101130 (G’s death) to January 3, 2015. Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant two real estate due to testamentary gift from Daegu District Court’s receipt on January 3, 2015. Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate by reason of testamentary gift from Daegu District Court’s receipt on January 3, 2015.

E. In addition, on April 30, 2015, Defendant D, E, and F completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage in each of the instant real estate in their names, as stated in the purport of the claim.

(A) Each of the obligors, the maximum debt amount, KRW 100 million (based on recognition), / [The grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, A1 through 4 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. At the time of preparation of the notarial deed claiming by the Plaintiff, G had no capacity to perform the will, and the notarial deed of this case was null and void since it did not directly accept the will.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership by Defendant B and C based on the Notarial will of this case is null and void.