1. The defendant shall receive KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant farmland”) owned by the Plaintiff to KRW 50 million (the contract amount to KRW 20 million and the balance to KRW 30 million). On the 19th of the same month, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the Defendant’s future on the ground of the above sale. In full view of the evidence and circumstances as delineated below, it is reasonable to view that the above sale contract was concluded upon the Plaintiff’s lack of intent.

As a result of the first diagnosis on June 12, 2012, three months after the date of the above sales contract, dementia symptoms (10 points for simple mental condition MPE, and clinical dementia scale : 2 points) were discovered, and the time for the appraisal of physical examination of the department of mental health in the Jeonnam Hospital: May 20, 2013 to the Plaintiff:

6. According to 14. 14.), the Plaintiff’s symptoms of dementia with a present severe symptoms (the degree of dementia: 3 points, both sides of MPI video) were included in the level of mental retardation (the overall I Q: 69 points, and the social age following the Sms inspection is approximate 4 years old) in the latitude measurement result. The massive reaction, including the external appearance of these symptoms and the decrease of recognition ability, is confirmed in the implementation of November 27, 2013.

Although the above entrustment of diagnosis and appraisal was made only after the conclusion of the above sales contract at the time when the legal dispute occurred between the parties. Dementia is not only the disease caused by the patient’s symptoms or progress speed, but also there was no diagnosis of dementia by attending the medical institution before the above early medical examination. Even if the above contract was concluded, the Plaintiff’s wife C was unable to properly recognize that the Plaintiff was suffering from the medical meaning beyond alcohol addiction, and contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife were also the motive for continuing direct cultivation in the farmland of this case.