According to the judgment of the court below, even if the defendant donated this real estate to the plaintiff, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for rescission of the contract of donation based on the following reasons: (a) since the contract of donation was made on October 22, 1974, which was made after the contract of donation, due to the consumption of the pre-paid property in treatment expenses, etc., and thus, the cancellation of the contract of donation was made on the ground that the transfer of the ownership of this real estate to the plaintiff would have a significant impact on his livelihood; (b) however, in order to effectively cancel the contract of donation by the above declaration of intent of rescission, the above interpretation of Article 557 of the Civil Act must be met: (c) the defendant's property status after the contract of donation would have been considerably changed compared to the property status at the time of donation, and (d) the transfer of the real estate ownership to the plaintiff would have a significant impact on his livelihood; and (d) the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the above requirements were met; (d) however, (e) the court below erred in its reasoning to reverse the judgment below.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Judge)