1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, on May 27, 2014, donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is his/her father, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant real estate by the Seoul Northern District Court’s Dobong Branch on May 29, 2014, as the receipt No. 3498.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff gathered the Plaintiff and supported the Plaintiff’s life while living. The Defendant: (a) obtained the instant real estate as collateral and offered the instant real estate loan to the third son; and (b) refused it; and (c) changed the password of the entrance door between the non-transporting places of the instant real estate from January 8, 2016 to drive away from the instant real estate.

Therefore, the plaintiff cancelled the above donation contract on the ground of non-performance of obligation due to non-performance of obligation due to the donation by the delivery of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration

3. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate on the condition that the Plaintiff et al. were to gather and support the Plaintiff’s life, it is difficult to believe that each entry of evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 9, which appears to correspond thereto, is difficult, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff supported the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant, from January 8, 2016, did not perform his/her duty due to onerous donation, such as driving away the Plaintiff from the instant real estate by changing the password of entrance, it is difficult to believe that each of the items of evidence A, which appears consistent with this, are stated in the evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant committed a criminal act against the plaintiff or his/her lineal blood relative.

Since the obligation to support the plaintiff was not fulfilled under the civil law, it is in accordance with Article 556(1) of the Civil Code.