1. The Defendants:

A. As to each share of 502,182/12,052,380 square meters, among the 1068 square meters of 1068 square meters in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Nonparty G were the children of the network H. 2) From September 1, 2015, the Deceased was hospitalized in a hospital specializing in the Gyeongbuk-do, a medical corporation specializing in the old-do, a medical corporation, a literature-based hospital, etc., and died on October 23, 2016.

B. The deceased’s property relation 1) The deceased’s property relation 1068m20,000,000,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff owned the deceased, and on the 19th day of the same month, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for each of the Defendants’ respective shares on the 1/2nd day of the same month. At the time of the inheritance commencement of the instant land, the value is equivalent to 12,052,380 won (i.e., 11,285 won x 1068 square meters). (ii) The Defendants withdrawn KRW 46,260,00 from the Agricultural Cooperatives Deposit Account owned by the Deceased from July 21, 2016 to October 26, 2016, and used KRW 3,329,410 (amount paid after July 21, 2016) as the sum of the deceased’s medical expenses.

3) The Deceased did not have any other positive inherited property or any obligation of inheritance at the time of the death (the fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, Eul’s evidence No. 2, Eul’s evidence No. 3-1, 4 through 7, evidence No. 8-3 through 6, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The assertion and judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the deceased had been in a state of loss of mental capacity due to the above dementia since one year prior to the death of the deceased, and thus, it is null and void to give a donation to the Defendants with the instant land and deposits.

B. Determination capacity refers to mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined based on the meaning or outcome of one’s act based on normal perception and towing power, and whether a person has a capacity to act ought to be individually determined in relation to specific legal acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002; 2008Da84472, Jul. 9, 2009); and on the ground that it falls under Article 107(1) of the Civil Act.