beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the father of the defendant.
B. On March 26, 2012, the Defendant purchased from D the Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 250 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on April 30, 2012.
C. At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to donate KRW 250 million to the Defendant as the sales price of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”), and accordingly, paid KRW 250 million to the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings]
2. Assertion and determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, in the future, donated KRW 250 million, which is equivalent to the purchase price of the instant real estate, to the Defendant, on the condition that the Defendant is married and running a family life.
However, in 2013, the defendant does not make any effort for marriage since he was hedging in the situation where he was married with G and did not report the marriage.
Therefore, the Plaintiff cancelled the gift contract of this case, which is an onerous donation, on the ground that the Defendant failed to perform his/her duty to marry and family by delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and sought the refund of KRW 250 million, which is equivalent to the purchase price, and the delay damages.
B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge the instant donation contract as an onerous donation contract on the condition that the Defendant’s marriage and family life are maintained.
In addition, in addition to the description of No. 1 and the overall purport of pleadings as a result of the Defendant’s examination, the Defendant did not report the marriage, but did not make a marriage with G and a short family life, and the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant is giving a dual intercourse on the premise of marriage at present. As such, the Defendant will continue to lead to a family life by marriage in the future.