beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant’s registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter in this case’s registration of ownership transfer) was completed on April 10, 2017 on the instant real estate that was owned by the Plaintiff, the mother of the Plaintiff (hereinafter in this case’s donation) and was based on donation on April 11, 2017, may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs A, 1, 2, and 11 and the purport
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid since the instant donation contract is concluded with the Plaintiff’s capacity to perform his/her duties. Therefore, the transfer registration of ownership on the ground of the instant donation must be cancelled.
B. The relevant legal reasoning capacity refers to the mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably be determined based on a normal perception and towing power based on the meaning or outcome of one’s act, and whether a person has a capacity to act should be determined individually in relation to specific legal acts.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113 delivered on October 11, 2002, etc.). C.
In light of the above legal principles in this case, according to the health team, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 12, and 14, the plaintiff received medical treatment from the plaintiff on April 16, 2014 to May 21, 2015, and it can be recognized that there was an obstacle to the recognition function by undergoing a diagnosis of pinson's sexual dementia, etc., and that there was an obstacle to the recognition function by March 2017. However, as the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including the provisional number) can be recognized in addition to the whole purport of each statement and pleading, it is unclear whether the plaintiff was unable to determine the legal meaning and effect of the donation of this case at the time of the donation of this case, and there was a possibility that the plaintiff understood the meaning and effect of the case where the guardian was at the time of the contract of this case, and in criminal cases such as quasi-Fraud against the defendant, the defendant was subject to disposition not only by evidence but also by evidence of August 30, 2017.