1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. D’s wife died on November 23, 201 when four children, such as E, F, Plaintiff B, and Defendant, were placed between Plaintiff A and his wife.

B. On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, E, and F completed the registration of co-ownership according to inheritance on the instant real estate owned by D (Plaintiffs A3/11 shares, E, F, Plaintiff B, and Defendant 2/11 shares). On the same day, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of gift on December 21, 2017 (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion of revocation of gift by deception: when the defendant newly constructed a loan to the plaintiffs in the real estate of this case, it would lend one loan to the plaintiffs, purchase the house in which they will reside in the future, and faithfully support the plaintiffs, thereby making a donation of the shares in the real estate of this case. Since the plaintiffs cancel the donation contract of this case on the ground of deception, the defendant is obligated to cancel the above share transfer registration. 2) The defendant is obligated to cancel the donation of this case on the ground of deception. 2) The donation contract of this case is a conditional donation contract of this case where the defendant gives one loan to the plaintiffs, and the defendant clearly expresses his intention not to implement the above condition to support. Thus, the above donation contract of this case is null and void as a non-performance of the condition.

3. Plaintiff B’s assertion of office capacity: Plaintiff B transferred his/her share to the Defendant according to Plaintiff A’s intent under the status of his/her office capacity, so the said donation is null and void.

3. Determination

A. According to the Plaintiff B’s assertion of administrative capacity, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5, it is recognized that Plaintiff B was registered as a disabled person with a mental retardation disability in the third degree, but solely based on the above recognition, the said Plaintiff is capable of distinguishing things or making decisions at the time of the instant gift contract.