A. The plaintiff is the birth of E, and the defendant B is the birth of E who completed the marriage report on September 13, 2006, and the defendant C and D are the children of E.

B. On June 26, 2014, E died, and Defendant B, the wife, inherited E in the share of 3/7 shares of inheritance, Defendant C and D, each of whom is children, inherited E in the share of 2/7.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In August 2004, the Plaintiff donated KRW 67,340,000 to G account, a building business entity, on condition that E and E support for a her mother-friendly F, with the intention to donate housing construction funds to E, and around September 2014, the Plaintiff donated KRW 67,340,000.

However, E did not properly support F after having remarriedd with Defendant B, and the Defendants who succeeded to E did not support F and did not perform the duty of support.

The plaintiff cancels the contract of donation on the ground of the defendants' non-performance of duty to support.

The Defendants are obligated to return the money that the Plaintiff donated to the Plaintiff as a result of restitution.

B. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 67,00,000 to E in total from November 4, 2005 to November 23, 2009.

The Defendants, the inheritor of E, are obligated to return the above loans to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's exclusion period and argument

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not exercise the right of rescission within the exclusion period of six months under Article 556(2) of the Civil Act from the time when the defendants' obligation to support under the plaintiff's assertion was not fulfilled.

B. “Duty to support” under Article 556(1)2 of the Civil Act refers to the duty to support between lineal blood relatives under Article 974 of the Civil Act and their spouses or relatives who share the same livelihood. As such, Article 556(2) of the Civil Act or Article 558 of the Civil Act does not apply since the obligation to support under an agreement between the parties does not fall under such obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4358, Jan. 26, 1996).