1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Defendant’s basic facts were the Plaintiff’s children, and the fact that the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim was completed on April 16, 2012 on the ground of preserving the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer by gift reservation (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have expressed his/her intent to make a promise to donate the instant real estate to the Defendant.

Even if the plaintiff made the above declaration to the defendant, such declaration was made by mistake without knowing the contents thereof. Thus, it shall be revoked by Article 109(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the provisional registration of this case is a registration of invalidity of cause which lacks legitimate cause, and must be cancelled.

B. If a registration has been made on any real estate subject to judgment, it shall be presumed that it has been made lawfully in its cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). Therefore, the party asserting the procedure and the cause is liable to prove it.

The Plaintiff did not express its intent to promise to donate the instant real estate to the Defendant only with the images of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 14 (including the number of pages), and Gap evidence Nos. 6.

It is insufficient to recognize that the above declaration of intent was made by mistake or mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the following facts: (a) No. 1-1, 2, and 4 (the contract for reservation of donation, provisional registration delegation, confirmation document, and each Plaintiff’s signature are presumed to have been authentic; (b) evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, 5, and 2-2; and (c) the intent of the witness C’s testimony and pleading transfer, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to make a promise of donation with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 16, 2012.

Therefore, the plaintiff.