1. The Defendant shall restore the Plaintiff’s true title with respect to the portion of 1/6 of each real estate listed in the list.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2014, the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) established the Plaintiff, Defendant D, E, E, F, and G with their children, and died on November 25, 2014, and the said children inherited each one-six of their respective property (see, e.g., the deceased’s wife and children, I, and J, who died first of the deceased). B. On July 1, 2014, the deceased entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant gift agreement”) with respect to each of the real estate listed in the list (hereinafter collectively “the instant real estate”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the Defendant on July 7, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) capacity means the mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably determine the meaning or result of its act based on normal perception and towing ability, and the existence or absence of capacity must be individually determined in relation to specific legal acts;

In particular, in a case where a certain juristic act is given with a special legal meaning or effect that makes it difficult to understand only the ordinary meaning, it is required to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act, but also the legal meaning or effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da58367, Jan. 15, 2009, etc.). (b) In full view of the following circumstances, each description of evidence Nos. 4, 7-15, and 19 and each film can be recognized by adding the whole purport of pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased has no mental ability or intelligence to reasonably determine the meaning or result of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case based on normal perception and towing (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da58367, Jun. 16, 2014).