1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims added to the trial are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs and the claims in the trial.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of this case is to delete the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4, No. 19, and No. 20 of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, “the assistance of the defendant C and the land owned by the plaintiff A at the time of the plaintiff A,” and as follows, except for the following additional determination as to the additional assertion made by the plaintiffs at the time of the trial, the relevant part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that ① around the time of donation to Defendant C of each of the instant real estate, there was symptoms of dementia accompanied by behavioral disorder, etc., and Defendant B also gave a mental disorder due to the efficial illness, etc., at the time, the plaintiffs were null and void since they entered into the instant donation contract under the status of their office capacity, and ② Defendant C is supported by the plaintiffs, and thus, the instant donation contract is deemed as onerous donation because the instant real estate was donated to Defendant C. As such, the instant donation contract is deemed as an onerous donation. Since Defendant C’s father did not properly pay the money that Defendant C received from the use fees of each of the instant land to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs asserted that the above obligation to support was not fulfilled. Accordingly, the plaintiffs revoked the instant donation contract.

B. (1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 3-1 through No. 6, and No. 4-1 through No. 4 as to the assertion of office capacity, the whole purport of the pleadings was as follows: at the time of the donation contract of this case, the plaintiff A was in a state of cognitive disability that was in a state of being aware of the recent cases of his own life, and since 2003, the plaintiff B suffered from e-mail assistance in e-mail since 2003, but it cannot be deemed that all the plaintiffs lost mental ability or intelligence that could sufficiently express his own opinion, and there is no other evidence to support that the plaintiffs were in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being

Therefore, ..