2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4-1, 2, 6 through 10, Eul evidence 5-1 through 4, 6-1 through 5, 7-1 through 9, 9-1 through 5, 9-9, and 10-1 through 7.

A. The plaintiff 1 is the wife of the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased's birth on April 13, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The plaintiff 2 is the deceased's incidental, and the defendant is the deceased's punishment.

B. On or around December 30, 1972, as to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1, around February 5, 1979, as to the land listed in paragraph (2) of the annexed Table No. 2 as to the land around February 5, 1979, the registration of transfer of each ownership in the deceased’s name was completed on or around April 27, 1981 as to the 2,49m2,49m2.

C. At the time, not only three parcels of the instant land, but also 1167 square meters prior to the grain farm (number 2 omitted) on both sides of the Gyeonggi Kimpo-gun (hereinafter “the instant grain farm (number 2 omitted), the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased was completed.

D. On September 24, 1989, the Deceased died as a traffic accident, and around October 1989, the Plaintiffs donated three parcels of land of this case to the Defendant among the land registered in the name of the Deceased. Accordingly, as to each of the land of this case, the Incheon District Court Decision 26990 received on November 8, 1989 and completed each transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Plaintiffs (1/2, each co-owned share) on the ground of inheritance as of November 8, 1989, and then the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed on the same date under the name of the same registry office as of the same date.

E. Of each of the instant lands, the instant land was divided into the same Ri (number 3 omitted) No. 977 square meters as the land indicated in attached Table No. 3 of the attached Table No. 3 on January 21, 1999. Of these, the instant land was incorporated into the site for the “Yeongsungcheoncheon Repair and Repair Project,” which was implemented by the Han River Improvement Association. Accordingly, the Defendant and Gyeonggi-do agreed on January 4, 1999 on the entry of the said land into the public site for the said land, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of Gyeonggi-do on the said land. In response, the Defendant received KRW 26,857,500 from Gyeonggi-do.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Both claims

⑴ 먼저 원고들은, 원고 1에 의하여 이루어진 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 증여의 의사표시는 당시 원고 1이 증여의 대상물이 무엇인지 전혀 모르고 있었고, 피고를 포함한 시댁식구들의 협박과 폭언에 견디다 못해 이루어진 것이어서 무효이므로, 피고는 원고들에게 무효인 증여의 의사표시에 터잡아 별지 목록 기재 각 부동산에 관하여 마쳐진 피고 명의의 각 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하고, 경기도로부터 수령한 26,867,500원 역시 부당이득으로 반환할 의무가 있다고 주장한다. 또한 원고 2는, 위 무효 주장이 받아들여지지 않는다고 하더라도, 원고 1이 자신의 소유지분을 초과하여 당시 미성년자이던 원고 2의 소유지분까지 피고에게 증여한 행위는 친권의 남용에 해당하여 무효이므로, 피고는 적어도 자신의 지분에 관하여는 위와 같은 의무를 각 이행하여야 한다고 주장한다.

D. The Defendant asserted that all the three parcels of land in this case and the instant grain (number 2 omitted) land were the land purchased from Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 to 1979, and only the name of the deceased was put in trust in the name of the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased. Upon the death of the deceased, Nonparty 2 collected all the three parcels of land in this case and donated the land to the Defendant who supported Nonparty 2 at the time of the death of the deceased, and the Defendant was able to ask the Plaintiffs’ mother at the time of the recovery of all the three parcels of land in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant, upon receiving Nonparty 2’s request from Nonparty 2, had been well aware of these circumstances, had the remainder of the land except the instant grain parcel number (number 2 omitted) land registered in the name of the deceased, which was registered in the name of the deceased, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above land was not a genuine abuse of parental authority or abuse of parental authority.

B. Determination

(i)The allegation that the gift is void on the ground of any defect or lack of the intent of gift.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' assertion that the expression of the gift of this case is null and void for the above reasons is without merit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Doz. The part concerning the invalidity of the plaintiff 2's gift on the ground of abuse of parental authority

In full view of the purport of each of the above evidence, it cannot be readily concluded that the exercise of parental authority was an abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child. Furthermore, it cannot be readily concluded that Plaintiff 1’s act of abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child constitutes an abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child, on the ground that Plaintiff 2 did not have any benefit in return to Plaintiff 2 in the above disposal of each of the real estate. However, in light of the legal act representing the minor, unless the person with parental authority does not constitute an abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child, it cannot be readily concluded that the act of abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child does not constitute abuse of parental authority on the ground that Plaintiff 2 did not have any benefit in return for the minor child’s death, such as disregarding the interests of the minor child, or promoting the benefit of a third party, and there is no possibility of abuse of parental authority on behalf of the minor child under the name of the deceased, as otherwise alleged in the Plaintiff 2’s title.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the gift in the future of the defendant with respect to each land of this case is null and void is without merit. Thus, the claim of this case based on the premise that the above gift is null and void is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiffs in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Sung Pung-chul (Presiding Judge)