1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The fact that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was completed on November 1, 201 for sale and purchase as of October 24, 201 is no dispute between the parties concerned.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. At the time of concluding the instant sales contract on October 24, 2011 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), the Plaintiff was in a state of mental capacity due to dementia, and thus was not capable of concluding the sales contract on his own. Thus, the instant sales contract was null and void since it did not confer the Plaintiff’s authority on the disposal of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff’s wife who entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant.

B. 1) The capacity to make a decision refers to mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably determine the meaning or result of one’s act on the basis of normal perception and towing power. In particular, in a case where a certain juristic act is given with a special legal meaning or effect that makes it difficult to understand only the ordinary meaning, it is required to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act, but also the legal meaning or effect in order to recognize the capacity to make a decision. The existence of capacity to make a decision must be individually determined in relation to a specific juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da29358, Sept. 22, 2006; 2008Da58367, Jan. 15, 2009). Meanwhile, in order to make a registration of ownership transfer with respect to real estate known to a third party, the registrant shall be presumed to have acquired ownership not only through the third party, but also through the legitimate cause for registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da363686, Apr. 26, 2968).