소유권말소등기
1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.
2. The defendant shall each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are F and G’s children, and the Defendant is the children of Plaintiff C and H (the marriage report on September 11, 1989, but the agreement was married on December 28, 2004; hereinafter “H”).
B.F died on July 4, 2008, and G on August 20, 2008, as regards each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) in the same year
7.4.Completion the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by a split-off of agreement.
C. On August 31, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) based on the donation (hereinafter “the instant donation contract”) from No. 139175, which was received by the Ulsan District Court on the same day on August 31, 2017, from August 30, 2017.
G died on October 21, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) / (based on recognition / A), Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6-4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the plaintiffs.
1) The deceased alleged the invalidity of the instant donation contract, which was concluded with a lack of mental capacity, was in a state where he was unable to make a normal decision by recognizing or judging the meaning or result of his act (such as sealing on the donation contract) as he was in a severe sense of recognition and dementia at the time of the instant donation contract. As such, the instant donation contract was concluded with a state where the deceased’s mental capacity was deficient, and thus is null and void, and thus, the instant transfer registration of ownership, which is the cause of registration, should be cancelled as a cause null and void. (2) The Defendant and H used the state where the deceased suffered severe recognition disorder and dementia at the time of the instant donation contract.