1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on February 1, 2018, and the deceased’s co-inheritors are the Plaintiff, the Defendant, D, and E, who are the children of the deceased.

B. Each of the instant real property owned by the deceased was transferred to the Defendant on August 4, 2015 due to the gift on August 4, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant gift agreement”).

C. The gift contract of this case is null and void as it was made in a state where the deceased was incapable of having a mental capacity due to severe dementia.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as stated in the purport of the claim in accordance with the plaintiff's inheritance shares (1/4).

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant gift contract was concluded under the condition that the deceased was incapable of performing his/her own name, age, and high-speed dementia. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments on the evidence Nos. 1 through No. 5 (including family numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the deceased was 89 years old at the time of the instant donation contract, and was suffering from the elderly dementia, and the report on the neological assessment (Evidence No. 2, the date of the inspection, April 6, 2015) of the F Hospital’s report on the neological assessment of the deceased, stating that “the deceased was unable to express the basic human information other than his/her name, age, and high-speed, and his/her spouse and children’s name was not well-founded,” and that adult guardianship was commenced on August 3, 2017 against the deceased and upon the request of the Plaintiff and D (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Mo14999).

However, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire argument in witness E’s testimony, the deceased talked to the purport that he donated each of the real estate of this case to the Defendant, who is the head of Pyeongtaek-gu, the Defendant, who is the head of Pyeongtaek-gu, was unable to memory due to dementia, but was not in the above state continuously.