1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff donated the Defendant a total of KRW 150 million on two occasions, and KRW 100 million on December 27, 201, respectively.

B. On December 29, 2011, the Defendant purchased each land indicated in the separate sheet, which is KRW 250 million, including approximately KRW 35,000,000, and the inspection building including approximately KRW 35,000,000. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty D with respect to the said C site.

Since August 5, 2014, D completed the registration of ownership transfer for each one-half of the above C sites to the plaintiff and the defendant.

C. Meanwhile, from May 24, 2013 to October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff donated an additional total of KRW 200 million to the Defendant on six occasions, and the Defendant removed approximately KRW 35 of the previous bonds with the said money and newly constructed buildings, such as an essential bond, warehouse, and restaurant.

On April 2014, the Plaintiff began to reside with the E, a de facto marital spouse, as a newly-built bond of C, and as a director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2, 4, 6, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion made a donation of KRW 450 million to the defendant, who is the well-known knowledge of C (hereinafter "the donation contract of this case"), and the defendant is responsible for the old age of the plaintiff and E (hereinafter "the plaintiff's husband and wife"), and thereafter, the plaintiff's husband and wife and the deceased's husband and wife were allowed to make a proposal.

In other words, the gift contract of this case is an onerous donation contract with the condition that the defendant supports the plaintiff's husband and wife and takes a post-determination of death.

However, since the defendant, without the intention to support the plaintiff's husband and wife or to make a proposal between the plaintiff's husband and wife and his father, the above-paid donation contract should be revoked as a declaration of intention by fraud.

In addition, since the defendant did not perform the obligation to support under the non-paid donation contract, it is a duplicate of the complaint of this case.