1. The Defendant is dated February 28, 2014 with respect to one-third share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is the plaintiffs and non-party D, E, F, and G's reference.

B. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant entered into a donation agreement with the Plaintiffs on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with respect to which each one-third share is donated to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2 (each gift contract, defendant's assertion that each gift contract was forged, but considering the overall purport of the arguments as to appraiser H's appraisal result of this court's appraiser H, the defendant's signature under No. 4-1, and No. 2-2 is deemed to be the same as the defendant's writing. Thus, since the authenticity of each of the above documents is presumed to have been formed, and there is no evidence to deem that each of the above documents was forged, the defendant's assertion is not accepted)

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the plaintiffs as to each of 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet according to the gift contract of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The contract of donation of this case by the defendant was made in the state of the defendant's ability to perform his duties due to Albuses. Thus, it is not concluded based on the defendant's genuine intent.

Preliminaryly, even if the gift contract of this case is valid, the plaintiffs had the defendant sign the gift contract of this case after deceiving the defendant or omitting his error. Thus, the contract of this case is revoked.

In addition, since the plaintiffs did not perform their duty to support the defendant as the defendant's own consciousness, they cancel the gift contract of this case pursuant to Article 556 (1) 2 of the Civil Code.

B. As to the allegation of the office capacity of the first instance judgment, the entry of the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.