1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are to be deleted from the fourth side of the judgment of the court of first instance to the end of the fifth to the end of the fifth to the end of the fifth to the end of the fifth to the end of the fifth to the end of the fifth to the end of the second. The following paragraph (2) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, unless the plaintiff adds the judgment on the new argument that the plaintiff has made in the trial, and thus,

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Article 104 of the Civil Act, which provides that a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the party’s old-age, rashness, or inexperience, applies to a non-free contract, such as a donation contract. Here, experience includes cases where the Plaintiff did not understand the legal meaning of the general trade due to mental illness, etc. In addition, the gift of this case was made under the state of experience in dementia due to the Plaintiff’s alz, and the Plaintiff suffered a significant loss due to this, while the Defendants obtained a corresponding profit, the gift of this case constitutes a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness, and thus, it constitutes a juristic act which is deemed null and void.

However, a juristic act that has manifestly lost fairness as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to an act of obtaining unfair economic benefits by allowing the other party to return in return that has significantly lost balance compared to his/her own benefit. Thus, a juristic act that one party without any consideration, such as a donation contract, does not constitute a juristic act of a nature that can discuss whether the other party is fair or not.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56833 delivered on February 11, 2000). Therefore, the prior Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without having to examine it.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff: (a) was the gift of this case under the circumstance that he did not properly understand important parts, such as the legal effect of the gift of this case, due to his dementia; and (b) was the donation of this case.