1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s grandchildren, and Defendant B, as the mother of Defendant C, divorced from Defendant C’s father around February 22, 2005.

B. On December 7, 1981, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant land”). As to the instant land on February 22, 2016 (hereinafter “the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant”) on the ground of sale and purchase (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name (hereinafter “the instant first registration”) was completed on March 21, 2016 on the ground of donation No. 4054 (hereinafter “the instant first registration”), and on February 5, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name (hereinafter “the instant second registration”) was completed in sequence on the ground of donation No. 4054 (hereinafter “the instant second registration”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a gift agreement with Defendant C on the instant land (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) and issued to Defendant C a seal imprint certificate, resident registration certificate, etc. necessary for filing an application for ownership transfer registration. Defendant B did not intend to sell or donate the instant land.

However, on the ground that Defendant C obtained the above seal imprint, resident registration certificate, etc. from the Plaintiff, forged documents, such as a sales contract, transfer of ownership, etc., that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to Defendant B, and completed the first registration of this case in the future of Defendant B. Therefore, the first registration of this case should be revoked in its ground for invalidation.

On the other hand, the gift contract of this case is not in writing, and the donor at any time before completing the performance.