beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.
2. The defendant is among each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Non-party I (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on October 29, 2014, and Plaintiff A, B, D, Defendant, and Non-party J, and Network K (Death August 8, 1996) were children of the deceased. Plaintiff E is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff F, and G.
B. On October 27, 2014, the Deceased donated each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant on October 27, 2014, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on October 29, 2014 as to the first real estate listed in the separate sheet on October 27, 2014.
(E) On October 27, 2014, the deceased delegated LA with the application for the transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate to a certified judicial scrivener on October 27, 2014, and according to the delegation, LA applied for the transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate on October 27, 2014, before the death of the deceased, and on October 29, 2014, it appears that LA applied for the transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet on October 29, 2014, when the deceased died. [The grounds for recognition]] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including the serial number)
2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the primary claim was null and void since they could not be distinguished from the deceased’s slurgical symptoms since before the deceased died, and that each gift was made in a state where the deceased lacks the mental capacity at the time of donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, and that each of the instant donations is null and void.
On the other hand, the mental capacity refers to the mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably be determined based on the meaning or result of his act based on normal perception and towing ability, and the existence of his/her mental capacity should be determined individually in relation to specific legal acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da58367, Jan. 15, 2009). According to the result of inquiry into the head of the large hospital of this court, the deceased was hospitalized in the Seobu Hospital on September 30, 2014.