1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 7875 on May 11, 2017, for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on May 11, 2017, based on the donation agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation agreement”) signed on May 11, 2017.

B. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression for the registration of ownership transfer, and delegated the authority to a certified judicial scrivener C on May 11, 2017 to file an application for ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate, and made written entries in the confirmation document to the effect that he/she is the person liable for registration.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-11, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s gift agreement is null and void since it was made without the Plaintiff’s ability to understand the meaning and effect of the legal act due to dementia that occurred two years prior to the age of 87.

Even if the Plaintiff had the capacity of intent at the time of entering into the instant gift contract, it was made by mistake in the status of insufficient intent to understand the legal meaning and effect of the instant gift contract. Thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant gift contract on the ground of mistake.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant should be cancelled for each real estate of this case.

B. Determination 1) The “psychological capacity” refers to mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably determine the meaning or result of one’s act based on normal perception and towing power, and the existence of a capacity to act ought to be individually determined in relation to a specific juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 100Do110, Oct. 11, 200