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

The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant, and the deceased on April 1, 2018, as the mother and the defendant's money.

The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on August 16, 2005 under the receipt of No. 23944 on August 16, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list in the name of Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant housing”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (which include the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the house of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff, on the condition that the plaintiff's mother and the defendant's mother C, who is the defendant's mother, support the house of this case. The defendant did not perform any duty of support, such as gathering the network C or examining the health, and the deceased on April 1, 2018, the deceased on April 1, 2018. The gift contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was cancelled as the defendant's default.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on unjust enrichment return to the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserted that the house of this case was donated by the deceased C without any condition.

Judgment

Whether or not there is an additional charge (Article 561 of the Civil Act), etc. (Article 561 of the Civil Act) to the gift, or whether or not the other party has agreed to assume a separate obligation with respect to the gift, constitutes a matter of fact-finding, which constitutes a matter of confirmation as to whether there is an intention to conflict with the other party who wishes to take legal effect and whether it was made by expressing explicitly or implicitly by speech or behavior, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010). According to the evidence acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s housing of this case is related.