1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) The deceased F (Death on October 12, 2007) married with the deceased G on March 8, 1952 (Death on June 7, 1965). On June 19, 1969, F married with the deceased H (Death on January 1, 201). 2) The children of F are the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, the Selection, the CD (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), the non-party I, the J, the Defendant B, and the non-party K.

B. On January 20, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of gift on January 19, 2006, No. 1191 of the receipt of machinery, such as the stay support of the Daegu District Court on January 20, 2006, at the time of stay in F on January 20, 2006 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the registration of transfer of ownership as to the real estate of this case should be cancelled due to the invalidity of the cause, since F was used in heavy wind since 10 years prior to the death of October 2007, and there was no normal decision-making ability. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the registration of transfer of ownership as to the real estate of this case should be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause.

Only on the basis of the evidence evidence Nos. 9 through 11, it is insufficient to recognize that F had no normal mental capacity due to a storm around the time of transfer registration of ownership in the future with respect to the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim to this different purport is without merit.

B. 1 Plaintiffs’ determination as to the conjunctive claim is F’s heir, the Defendant’s donation of the instant real estate from F to F is as seen earlier, and there is no assertion or proof as to the existence of any other property to F. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the conjunctive claim.