1. The Defendant committed an act on December 8, 2016 with respect to the portion of 27,798,670/45,69,954 out of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to Plaintiff A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on February 15, 2016. At the time of death, Nonparty B, C, D, and Defendant, the deceased’s heir, who was the deceased’s spouse, was the Plaintiff B, C, D, and Defendant.

B. On February 1, 2016, the Deceased completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendant on the ground of each gift (hereinafter “instant gift”) with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment List No. 1] on February 2, 2016, as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the [Attachment List No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

As of February 15, 2016, the market price of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table as of February 15, 2016 is KRW 27,360,00, and the market price of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table is KRW 18,339,954.

C. Around May 2014, the Deceased donated KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff B and C, respectively, and KRW 130,00,000 to the Plaintiff D, and KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant.

The Deceased separately donated KRW 70,00,000,000 to the Defendant on September 2, 2015, and KRW 70,000,00 each around September 2, 2015.

On September 15, 2015, the Defendant’s spouse G entered into a lease agreement consisting of KRW 100,000,000,000 as to the lease deposit for 2212 moving to the H building located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si. The Deceased resided in the above real estate. The Deceased paid KRW 100,000,000 as the above lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs were in a situation where normal decision-making is impossible at the time of the donation of this case, but the Defendant asserted that the donation of this case was null and void because the Defendant voluntarily completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the false donation contract. Thus, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.