1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on October 17, 1990, No. 42780, which was received on October 17, 1990, with respect to the entire Plaintiff’s share, among the area of 233 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to the establishment of the facts of recognition, as to the entire Plaintiff’s share.

[Based on Recognition] set forth in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff asserted that the real estate of this case was contributed to the defendant around 1983, and the defendant newly constructed a public health clinic and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case on that ground. The plaintiff is a person under disability with mental and physical disability who has no legitimate authority to represent the deceased, although he did not have a legitimate authority to represent the deceased, he did the above legal act in consultation with the defendant. Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case should be cancelled because it was completed without any legal cause.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 9 and 10, according to the judgment of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that as of February 10, 2014, the court below established limited guardianship for the plaintiff as the branch court of Suwon District Court No. 2013-Ma428, and decided to appoint his/her father and wife B as the plaintiff's limited guardian, and that according to the above decision, the plaintiff obtained the consent of the limited guardian or that his/her limited guardian should act on behalf of the plaintiff in the management of property, such as the management, preservation

However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff was a person without will at the time when the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was made only by the entries in the above facts of recognition and evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 12 through 16, and testimony of witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on such premise

In addition, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant used the real estate of this case as a public health clinic site.