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. The Plaintiff and D, as a husband and wife, had E, F, G, H, and I, including Defendant B, South Korea, under the chain.

B. Defendant C is his wife, and D died on May 10, 201.

C. On April 30, 2003, the Plaintiff donated each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant gift contract”) to Defendant B, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name under the name as the 16150 registry office received on May 6, 2003. Defendant B donated the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table No. 2 to Defendant C on August 17, 2009 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name under the receipt of No. 2055 on August 18, 2009 by the same registry office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 8-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s donation of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 to Defendant B, as in the above facts, is a donation with burden, provided that Defendant B support the Plaintiff and D.

Nevertheless, Defendant B did not properly support the Plaintiff and D, and the Plaintiff cancelled the above-paid donation contract with the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to implement each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, such as the entries in the claim, to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination is based on the issue of fact-finding as to whether or not there are additional burdens (Article 561 of the Civil Act), etc. on the gift, or whether or not the other party has agreed to assume a separate obligation in relation to the gift, since it constitutes a matter of fact-finding, since it is a matter of confirmation as to whether there was an intention between the parties to oppose to what legal effect has occurred and whether it was made explicitly or implicitly by means of speech, behavior, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878 Decided May 27, 2010, also bears the burden.