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. D, married to E, had five Vietnams of Defendant B, Plaintiff and F, G, and H under the chain, died on June 2, 2013, and E died on November 2, 2013.

Defendant C is a child of Defendant B.

B. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, the Seoul Western District Court: (a) issued on June 7, 2013, (b) the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B for sale and purchase on May 20, 2013; and (b) the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C was filed on July 8, 2013, (c) the Cheongju District Court Audio Registry (C) No. 20829, May 9, 2013, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 3.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, or entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserted by the parties (1). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate under the name of Defendant B or Defendant C, even though the Defendants received or purchased each of the instant real estate from the deceased D, and thus, each of the above registrations of ownership transfer should be cancelled as a registration of invalidity of cause made without the substance of sale and purchase or donation. The Plaintiff, as one of the co-inheritors of the network D, seek the cancellation of each registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants as co-inheritors.

(2) The Defendants asserted that since the Deceased decided to donate each of the instant real estate to the Defendants, each of the instant real estate transfer registrations in the name of the Defendants is in accordance with the intent of the network D, the owner of the instant real estate, and thus, it is valid as a

B. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 9 through 14, 19, and 20 (the plaintiff asserts that the evidence Nos. 9, 20 was forged, but lack of evidence to acknowledge it) of the judgment, and the overall purport of the argument as a result of written evidence Nos. 9 through 14, 19, and 20, the network D inherited or donated each of the instant real estate to the defendant B, the south of May 9, 2013.