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 had the Defendants, who are Nonparty E and his daughters, who are children, under the chain of influence.

B. The “land before the instant partition,” which is not more than 4363m2,00,000 square meters in the city of Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do.

(C) The instant land was divided into the instant land on January 30, 201 and the Gyeonggi-do Ansan-si District Court 1327 square meters in size. D. The instant land remaining in the Plaintiff’s name and the instant land of KRW 1327 square meters in size with respect to each of the 1/4 square meters in size, respectively, on March 25, 201, under the name of the Defendants. Nonparty H (Defendant D’s money) with respect to each of the 1/4 square meters in Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do and the instant land located in the Plaintiff’s name, and one-fourth of the 1327 square meters in size with respect to each of the 1/4 square meters in Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do.

(E) In the name of the same registry office as of March 2, 2012, the entire A/3 share transfer registration was completed on the ground of sale and purchase on January 20, 2012. E. Of the 1/4 share of the instant land in H’s name, each one/3 share in the name of the Defendants was completed in the name of the same registry office as of March 2, 2012, No. 8131, which was received on March 2, 2012, and the H share transfer registration was completed on February 24, 2012. Accordingly, the instant land was owned by the Defendants each in share of 1/3. As to 3/4 of the 1327 square meters in G orchard in the name of the Defendants. Accordingly, the entire Defendants’ share transfer registration was completed on the same date under the name of H as of the same date. The said land became solely owned by the Defendants. The fact that there was no dispute between H and the Plaintiff’s number No. 1 or 3 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is the cause of the instant claim. In order to avoid the demand for the continued transfer of the property by Nonparty E, who is the Plaintiff, around March 201, the Plaintiff trusted the title of 3/4 shares out of the land before the instant partition, under the name of the Defendants, who are married with the said 3/4 shares. The remaining 1/4 shares were transferred to the Defendants via Nonparty H, who is Defendant D’s motherer, and thus, the title trust was cancelled by the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.