1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The deceased C(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) married with E as D, and was employed by the Defendant, South, and South, as his child, and died on March 26, 2018.

On March 2, 2016, the Defendant and the Deceased entrusted the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, as the truster, who is the trustee; the Deceased and the ex post facto beneficiary entered into a trust agreement for will substitute with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant trust agreement”); on March 4, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership as the trustee on the ground of the trust on March 2, 2016; on April 25, 2018, the instant real estate was registered as the owner on the ground of the reversion of trust property on March 26, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, and Gap’s evidence Nos. 9-1, 9-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as at the time of the instant trust agreement, the Deceased was in a state of severe dementia, and thus, it is null and void by a juristic act conducted with lack of mental capacity

In addition, the part of the instant trust contract stipulating the succession of the ownership and the right to benefit of the deceased’s post-trust real estate is null and void as it lacks the formality corresponding to the legacy, although the substance of the contract constitutes testamentary gift.

Judgment

The decision-making capacity on the assertion of invalidation due to the capacity to perform his/her duties refers to the mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably be determined based on the meaning or consequence of his/her act based on normal perception and towing power, and the existence of mental capacity shall be determined individually in relation to a specific juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002). The party asserting invalidation of a juristic act on the ground of his/her capacity to perform his/her duties bears the burden of proof for such act.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 13. 13.