2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The plaintiffs are children of the deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the defendant is H’s father who was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased.

B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as the Suwon District Court No. 45729, Sept. 25, 2009, based on the sale and purchase on August 24, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with respect to each of the instant real estate owned by the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The purchase and sale contract of this case for the plaintiffs' assertion was concluded with the deceased without mental capacity due to severe dementia, and is null and void, or entered into the sale contract of this case where the defendant and H were considerably unfair by taking advantage of the deceased's poor condition where the deceased's mental capacity was restricted due to dementia.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers) of the judgment of the deceased, the deceased received a detailed dementia diagnosis on May 3, 2008 from I to I, 208, and on September 29, 2010, he/she received a diagnosis of the dementia by Alz’s disease.

However, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged based on the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the testimony of the witness M of the trial party, the results of the examination of the medical records by the appraiser N of the trial party, and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the deceased, after undergoing a detailed dementia diagnosis on May 3, 2008 by the doctor in charge of the first instance medical examination, continued to receive the diagnosis from the same doctor, but the dementia diagnosis was conducted once, and there was no separate treatment, ② The degree of dementia can be accurately known through the scale examination, ② The degree of dementia was not found. The results of the examination by N of the trial party appraiser N of the deceased was not based on the medical records based on the medical records based on the year 2008, 2010, and 3. It is difficult to believe it as it is, at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case directly.