1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 27, 2010 with respect to the share of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 2/3 on April 26, 2010 with respect to the share of 3/7 shares on April 27, 2010 with respect to the share of 102 Dong C apartment 102, 201, and reinforced concrete building 84.83 square meters, respectively.

B. As to the instant apartment, on April 27, 2010, the registration of transfer of the said D Shares was completed in the Defendant’s future on the ground of the gift contract on April 8, 2010 on the ground that the said D Shares had been completed on April 27, 2010.

C. D’s own consciousness was drafted on April 8, 2010, in the presence of attorneys-at-law, with the content that the Defendant donated 3/7 of its own shares among the instant apartment units to the Defendant.

D On December 28, 2010, the Defendant died of Albusee Dementia from the Defendant's Canada Qubek's home.

【Fact that does not have any dispute】

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into a false donation contract on April 8, 2010 by using the status of office ability of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother’s Doz’s mother as dementia, and the transfer registration of D 3/7 of the instant apartment among the instant apartment units was cancelled by the registration of invalidity of cause. The Plaintiff died on October 28, 2010, and the Plaintiff inherited 1/2 of D shares and 3/14 of 1/2 of D shares, and thus, the Plaintiff should file a transfer registration with the Plaintiff.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether D’s donation contract for the 3/7 share out of the instant apartment on April 8, 2010 to the Defendant is invalid due to D’s office capacity.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 7, 10, and 1-1, 2, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 7, 10, and 1-1, D was diagnosed as a light disorder from around 2007 to around 3, 2009, and was diagnosed as a light-based dementia since around 2009, and D was temporarily diagnosed as a light-based dementia, but when blood is not adjusted, there was no particular problem in the expression of intention if blood is adjusted. The instant gift contract was directly visited by D and the Defendant to the E-at-law office.