beta
Text
The Defendant’s KRW 500,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from August 11, 2015 to September 5, 2016.
Reasons
1. The facts below the basis facts are either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 10, and may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.
Around August 2015, a charge donation contract was concluded to the effect that the Plaintiff, instead of donating KRW 500 million to the Defendant, would assume the Plaintiff’s duty to support (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and on August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff’s KEB but bank account (Account Number D) transferred from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account.
B. On the other hand, on November 25, 2014, Nonparty E filed a petition for a trial to commence adult guardianship with the Plaintiff as the Seoul Family Court 2014 Ma1153, the Plaintiff as the principal of the instant case. On September 1, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that the Plaintiff commenced adult guardianship against the Plaintiff and appointed a certified judicial scrivener B as an adult guardian (hereinafter “instant judgment to commence adult guardianship”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 25, 2015.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant donation contract was made in the state of the Plaintiff’s ability to work dementia, and thus null and void. Even if it is not null and void, the Defendant’s deception and conclusion should be deemed to have been made by deceiving the Plaintiff with the spirit of dementia.
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 500 million as damages for the return of unjust enrichment or the tort, and the damages for delay from the date of the payment.
3. Determination capacity means mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined on the basis of normal perception and towing ability, and whether a person has a mental capacity or capacity should be individually determined on the basis of a specific legal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002).