The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is the plaintiff's mother.

B. On June 30, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a donation contract with the Defendant to donate the instant building, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant.

C. On August 20, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant to donate the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant gift agreements”) and on August 21, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that each of the instant gift agreements imposes a burden on the Plaintiff and his/her spouse to faithfully support the Plaintiff and his/her spouse and to faithfully protect his/her ancestor and grave. The Defendant did not perform the said burden.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rescission of each gift contract of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration of the building of this case and each ownership transfer registration of the land of

3. Determination

A. Whether there is an additional charge (Article 561 of the Civil Act) on the gift or an agreement to assume a separate obligation with the other party in relation to the gift constitutes a matter of fact-finding, and it constitutes a matter of fact-finding, since it is a matter of confirmation of whether there was an intention between the parties to conflict with each other to have legal effect and whether it was made by expressing it explicitly or implicitly by speech, behavior, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878 Decided May 27, 2010). B.

In the case of this case, it is recognized that the statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 7 and the testimony of witness C alone are attached to each gift contract of this case as alleged by the plaintiff.