소유권말소등기
1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on December 8, 2014 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.
2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the date of the request is F.
Basic Facts
A. The children between the Plaintiff (1937 students) and the deceased J are South-Nam, South-Nam L, Samnam F, and Sanam H.
Defendant C is the wife of the Plaintiff’s head of K, and Defendant D and E are the children of K.
B. On December 18, 2007, the Plaintiff completed a testamentary document stating that the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff will testamentary gift of 1/4 equity shares to K, M (M) (M), F, and H.
C. As to the instant real estate on July 31, 2014, Defendant C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) was completed on August 13, 2014 on the following grounds: (a) the ownership transfer registration (share: Defendant C3/5, Defendant D, and E 1/5) was completed; and (b) the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate was completed on the 780,000,000 maximum debt amount in the front of the maximum debt amount.
F and H asserted that “The Plaintiff at the time of the instant donation agreement was unable to have a mental capacity due to dementia, and thus the instant donation agreement is null and void)” and applied for the appointment of the Plaintiff’s special representative (this Court 2014Kala10179), and filed the instant lawsuit on October 31, 2014 by appointing a lawyer as the Plaintiff’s special representative.
E. On the other hand, on December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of the instant lawsuit along with a notarized statement stating that “The instant lawsuit is withdrawn, as the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate to Defendant C, etc. according to the Plaintiff’s intent.”
On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff's special representative filed an application for the designation of the date, alleging that the withdrawal of the lawsuit is null and void on the ground of the plaintiff's mental capacity or lack of litigation capacity.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings
A. The Plaintiff’s special representative shows the symptoms of dementia since 2009, and around 201, the Plaintiff lost its normal recognition ability and decision-making ability, such as receiving hospitalized treatment in a convalescent hospital.
Therefore, the gift contract of this case has no capacity to make a contract.