A. On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff A with respect to one-fifth share of 1/5 square meters among 63 square meters in a racing-si.

A. F (Death on July 30, 1987) is the owner of 63 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) in Do, Sejong-si. The Defendant is the owner of 1562/2982 equity (hereinafter “instant equity”) out of 2775 square meters in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do.

B. The Plaintiff A, the Defendant, G, H, I, and J (Death on May 11, 2005) are the deceased F’s legal heir (1/6 of the current legal heir) (1/6 of the deceased, respectively), and K was the person who was married with the J around August 28, 1987.

C. On April 26, 2016, the Defendant signed and sealed on the “Agreement on Donation” of Computer Printeds written by the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Agreement”) that donated 1/5 of the instant site and 1/5 of the 1/5 of the L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L, and delivered it to the Plaintiff A.

E. On April 26, 2016, around 18:51, the Defendant made a violent report telephone to the Dobong Police Station, and the service log of the Dobong Police Station stated that “No human material damage is inflicted due to the dispute over property issues between the parties concerned.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts under the premise (i) as to Plaintiff A’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 26, 2016 with respect to one-fifth share of the instant site to Plaintiff A on the ground of donation.

Luxembourg The defendant asserts that the defendant's declaration of gift is revoked as the defendant's delivery of a preparatory document dated August 18, 2017, because she signed and sealed the above agreement with the plaintiff A's coercion.

According to the premise facts, although the defendant reported violence to the police station on the date of signing and sealing, the content of the report alone cannot be readily concluded that the above agreement was made by assault or coercion of the plaintiff A, and the investigation was conducted with the same content.

There is no circumstance that there was an accusation by the defendant, and eventually, it is recognized that there was a coercion by the defendant's assertion only by the statement of Eul 3 or testimony of witness I.