1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s mother.

B. On March 10, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the gift made on March 9, 1994 (hereinafter “instant gift”) to the Defendant on March 10, 1994 with respect to the area of 195 square meters in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 10, and 11, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is the Defendant’s non-performance of duty to support the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s non-performance of duty to support the Plaintiff’s family members on the condition of rescission of violent events

However, since the Defendant did not support the Plaintiff at all, and the Plaintiff’s father and son are married to the Plaintiff, the gift of this case lost its effect due to the fulfillment of the rescission condition.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to restore to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a partial claim of 65,609,800 won of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above real estate value and damages for delay.

B. Whether there is an additional charge (Article 561 of the Civil Act) on the gift or an agreement to assume separate obligations with the other party in relation to the gift is a matter of fact-finding, which constitutes a matter of fact-finding, since the existence of an intent to conflict between the parties to a certain legal effect and whether such an agreement was reached, explicitly or implicitly, by means of speech or behavior, etc., and thus, it constitutes a matter of fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010). The testimony of witness D alone is insufficient to find that the gift in this case constitutes an onerous gift as alleged above by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.