1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the second parent of the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on May 3, 2014, with respect to the land of 2876m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the Defendant, the Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Office, 4949, which was received on May 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) based on the donation on May 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff cancelled the gift contract of this case for the following reasons, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the plaintiff.

(Optional Claim). (A)

Since the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate under the condition that the Plaintiff directly gathers and supports the Plaintiff, the instant donation contract constitutes an onerous donation, which is a relative donation. Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff was gradually dissatisfying due to dementia symptoms and underpharmacologics, it did not look at the Defendant’s doping that the Plaintiff would be unsatisfying, even though the Plaintiff was receiving hospital treatment and pharmacologic treatment due to dementia and abortion, the instant donation contract was rescinded by serving a duplicate of the complaint in accordance with Articles 561 and 544 of the Civil Act.

B. The Defendant did not perform its duty to support the Plaintiff after entering into the instant gift contract. Since the Plaintiff’s property status was significantly changed due to the instant gift contract, and the fact that the instant real estate was donated to the Defendant, which led to the Defendant’s death from the rest of the children, and thus, is threatened with a threat of livelihood as the Defendant did not receive the duty to support. As such, the instant gift contract is served with a duplicate of the briefs dated August 19, 2016, pursuant to Article 557 or 556(1)2 of the Civil Act.