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

A. The plaintiff is a DNA, and the defendant is the plaintiff's head.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list is owned by the deceased E, the husband of the Plaintiff, and thereafter on December 26, 201 and July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the wife of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer or the registration of ownership transfer for each of 2/13 shares of 3/13 shares, the Defendant, F, G, B, and H, which are children, respectively.

C. On October 12, 2017, among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a donation agreement with respect to the Plaintiff’s 3/13 shares (the same as each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; hereinafter “instant real estate”) and H 2/13 shares (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”). On October 24, 2017, the ownership transfer registration under the Defendant’s name was completed on October 12, 2017 with respect to the instant real estate and H’s shares.

On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff was decided to commence adult guardianship as the branch court of the Suwon Family Court of Law No. 2018 was 1324.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, and 5's statements (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant real estate.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had already been diagnosed with dementia on September 6, 2017, which was before the conclusion of the instant donation contract, and the Defendant concluded the instant donation contract with intent to have the Plaintiff’s property and sought the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of dementia, the Defendant prepared a confirmation document, etc. among the transfer of ownership on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s money, such as gift tax arising from the transfer of ownership to the instant real estate, etc., the Plaintiff was in the state of business capacity at the time of entering into the instant donation contract, and thus, the instant donation contract is null and void.

B. In addition, in light of the above circumstances, the instant case.