1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant support the Plaintiff and walked up his will; (b) on May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant registration”); (c) but (d) on May 8, 2017, the Defendant did not perform the said conditions, thereby cancelling the said donation contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant registration to the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the other party has agreed to assume a separate obligation with respect to the gift or the other party’s assumption of a separate obligation with respect to the gift or the other party’s assertion of the existence of a legal effect has the intention to conflict between the other party and the other party’s assertion of the existence of the legal effect, and the existence of such an agreement, either explicitly or implicitly, has been made by means of a verbal or action

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010). Although evidence presented in line with the Plaintiff’s assertion is indicated in the evidence No. 3 and No. 5, the entry of No. 5 cannot be trusted as it is, and the entry of No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant real estate gift was a pro rata gift on the condition that the Defendant support and salmating the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.