1. The defendant expressed his/her intent to accept the claim for return of deposit against the deposit stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sold the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Buildings owned by the Plaintiff to C.

B. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff opened a deposit account as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant account”) and deposited the sales price in the instant account.

The account of this case is the joint name of the plaintiff, the defendant who is the plaintiff's father's father's father's father, and E, so the deposit deposited in the account of this case can be withdrawn at the time of consent of all the joint names.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense against dementia suffered by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not have the intent to file the instant lawsuit or the litigation capacity, and the instant lawsuit was filed under the Defendant’s initiative E, which is unlawful. As such, the instant lawsuit is a defense prior to the merits to the effect that it

In light of the following: (a) mental capacity means the mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined based on the meaning or outcome of one’s act’s normal perception and towing power; (b) the effect of a procedural act conducted by a person without mental capacity should be determined by individual procedural act by taking into account various circumstances, including the degree of his/her mental capacity, the nature and effect of the pertinent procedural act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002); (c) the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2; and (d) the fact-finding with respect to the head of this court’s F Hospital, G Hospital, etc., the Plaintiff was diagnosed on dementia around September 2014, and went through the dementia-related treatment from that time to the closing date of the argument; (d) the Plaintiff’s spatial ability in the inspection conducted by the Plaintiff on July 30, 2016, was limited to the date and time when the pertinent suit was filed, but did not know that his/her memory during the short term.