beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed to donate the instant land to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the instant agreement with respect to the instant land.
2. Determination
A. The evidence No. 1 (Gift) is presumed to be duly formed, since the defendant stated his/her name and resident registration number in writing.
However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the witness D’s testimony and the Defendant’s entire purport of pleading as a whole, the presumption of the establishment of the authenticity cannot be admitted as evidence, inasmuch as the Defendant does not seem to have written his/her name and resident registration number in his/her own form, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the authenticity.
① At the time of the formation of the above gift contract, the Defendant appears to be a person who is aged 85 years old and has no ability to read Korean language. From then, the Defendant was diagnosed on August 28, 2018, which was 3 months after the date of the formation of the above gift contract, and was diagnosed by Alphomer’s disease, etc.
② The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) his mother, at the end of April, 2018 or around the beginning of May, 2018, DNA sought the Defendant to explain the ownership relationship with respect to the instant land; (b) the Defendant confirmed that the ownership of the instant land was on the Plaintiff’s side; and (c) the Plaintiff made and executed the said donation contract around May 8, 2018.
However, the above D appears not to be accurately aware of the seller, the date of sale, the terms and conditions of the sale, and the circumstances of the sale, etc., even though it asserted that E purchased the land of this case, which is the plaintiff's father. However, the above D merely did not contain any particular material verifying the ownership relationship of the land of this case.