1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff has a large father D and small father E, and the defendant is the husband of E who is the second husband of the plaintiff.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff donated the instant land to the Defendant on June 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant donation”) with respect to the area of 992 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On the 20th day of the same month, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said land based on sale in the Defendant’s future.

C. On September 4, 2017, the Defendant repaid all of KRW 80,243,024 of the Plaintiff’s principal and interest of the loan to Nonghyup Bank, the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant land, and cancelled the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the fifth day of the same month.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 2, 3 and Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers)]

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion is distinguishable from her husband’s husband, and the Plaintiff’s land in this case was loaned KRW 80,000,000 as security, but did not have any circumstance to pay interest.

As such, the Defendant couple said, “the Defendant will pay the interest on loans and support the Plaintiff well. They will hold funerals so far after drawing up a funeral map.” On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff accepted the conditions presented by the Defendant husband and wife, donated the instant land to the Defendant husband and wife, and made a conditional donation contract to complete the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name, and entered the Defendant husband and wife’s house on the 25th day of the same month.

On July 18, 2017, 201, the second son E engaged in cruel acts, such as inflicting injury upon the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff got away from the family of the victimized couple, but still, the Plaintiff still took a bath difficult to put in E.

Ultimately, the Defendant couple did not perform the conditional obligation arising from the gift promised to the Plaintiff, and thus the instant donation contract is rescinded by serving the written complaint of this case on the part of the Plaintiff.

The defendant's subrogation from the plaintiff.