beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
A. Defendant D: (a) on September 2015, 2015, with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Changwon District Court was sealed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 10, 2015, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “each of the instant donations”) based on the gift on August 27, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant donations”) as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”). The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 3, and 6 of the said list, together with the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”).
B. On October 13, 2015, Defendant D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor D and the maximum debt amount of KRW 52 million with respect to the instant real estate No. 1, etc. on October 13, 2015, and on November 23, 2015, with respect to the instant third real estate, etc., the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor D and the maximum debt amount of KRW 52 million (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage over each of the instant real estate”).
C. On May 26, 2016, the deceased had the Plaintiffs, Defendant D, and E as their children, and upon Plaintiff D’s request, on May 26, 2016, the Changwon District Court rendered a decision to commence adult guardianship with an adult guardian as Plaintiff D.
The deceased died on May 12, 2017 while the present case was pending, and among the successors, the plaintiffs taken over the instant lawsuit.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 9-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the contract of this case was concluded with the plaintiff's ability to perform duties due to dementia at the end, and thus, the contract of this case was null and void, and thus, it was based on each registration of ownership transfer and its basis.