beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, from April 25, 2015, and Defendant C, from April 25, 2015, and Defendant C, from KRW 150,000,00.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendants, and among the 2 South and North women of the plaintiff slves of the plaintiff slves of the plaintiff slves, defendant B is the mother, and defendant C is the
B. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a “ proxy letter of delegation for property management” with the content that the Plaintiff limited the place of use for the purpose of improving the Plaintiff’s convenience, such as the Plaintiff’s residence, livelihood stability, hospital treatment, etc.; and (b) remitted the said money to the Defendants (hereinafter “instant entrustment”); and (c) transferred the said money to the Defendants.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s symptoms of dementia make it impossible for the Plaintiff to express normal intent and perform legal acts. The Plaintiff’s wife’s husband and wife filed the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s will.
In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument as to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with an unidentified blood disease since July 2014, but on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, evidence No. 24, and evidence No. 11 (including the branch number) and the entire purport of the pleading, i.e., the degree of dementia was diagnosed at the time of July 2014, and there is no circumstance to deem that the degree of dementia significantly aggravated at the time of the instant lawsuit following the instant diagnosis, and there is no circumstance to deem that the degree of dementia was significantly aggravated at the time of the instant lawsuit following the instant diagnosis. Upon the Defendants raised questions about the Plaintiff’s ability, the Plaintiff appeared at the court of this court and expressed his intention to continue the lawsuit. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendants applied for the commencement of adult guardianship for each Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff appeared and made a statement on the date of hearing, and the Defendant’s defense
3. Determination as to the cause of action
(a) evidence Nos. 9, 10, 17 through 23, 25 through 31 can be obtained;