1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B, including the claim that changed from the trial to the trial, is as follows.

Basic Facts

Defendant B’s spouse of the deceased E (F life, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the Plaintiff’s female, Defendant C’s male and female, and Defendant D’s male and female.

On January 2, 2013, the Deceased died from the G Hospital located in Yongsan-si (pulmonary, livering, and kidne), G Hospital around 12:56 on January 2, 2013.

At the time of death, there was no particular property for the deceased.

On September 15, 1999, the Deceased prepared a testamentary deed with the content that a notary public entrusted the Seocho Law Firm with a title to a testamentary gift of each real estate listed in the [Attachment] list owned by him, No. 756, 199, to Defendant B.

On November 11, 2011, the deceased donated each real estate listed in attached Table No. 1 to the defendant B, and the defendant B bears the obligation to return the lease deposit for each of the above real estate. On November 14, 2011, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant B was completed on November 11, 201 with respect to each of the above real estate.

On March 2, 2012, the Deceased donated the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the Attached List No. 2 to Defendant C, and the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the Attached List No. 3 to Defendant D respectively, and on March 21, 2012, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant C and D was completed on March 2, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap 1, 2, 4 through 6, 24, and Eul 2 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's claim for the purport of the whole pleadings as to the claim for the main purport of each real estate recorded in the separate sheet between the deceased and the defendants, the deceased was hospitalized for a long time due to symptoms, such as dementia and depression. Thus, each of the above gift contracts was concluded under the defendant C's unilateral initiative regardless of the deceased's will, since each of the above contracts was concluded under the status of the deceased's office ability or recognition and judgment ability, or was made under the defendant C's unilateral initiative regardless of the deceased's will.