1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. From January 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written or added, up to the third to seven acts, “the Plaintiff,” forced the Defendant to be hospitalized into a mental hospital and detained him/her on three occasions, on three occasions from January 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016. The Plaintiff forced the Defendant to attack the Defendant from March 2017 to July 2017, and at the end of July 2017.

8. The Defendant, while trying to detain the Defendant in a mental hospital again, was aware of this and committed an attempted attempted confinement with the Defendant’s escape, thereby committing an attempted confinement. Thus, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 556(1) of the Civil Act, rescinded a gift agreement on the instant land concluded with the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 556(1).

“The evidence submitted by the defendant” in the third 10th 10th 1 of the judgment of the first instance is “the evidence submitted by the defendant and the witness of the trial.” After the third 12th st st 12th of the judgment of the first instance, “the defendant,” the defendant, since April 25, 2010, stated that all of the parts in the letter “I present,” in the letter, “I do not clearly state their meaning, and is against social order, and thus null and void. However, even if the above contents are null and void on the grounds as alleged by the defendant, it is merely a separate obligation that is stipulated in relation to the land in this case at the bottom of each part of the first instance judgment, because it is nothing more than a separate obligation that is stated in relation to the land in this case.