Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Claim for establishing the fact of cohabitation, invalidation of investment and donation agreements, recognition of property ownership.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s chosen method of rights protection is inappropriate. Specifically:
– The claim to establish the fact of cohabitation without marriage cannot be satisfied, as PERSON_3 was in another marriage at the time of investment.
– Invalidating the investment agreement regarding investor identification does not correspond to the nature of legal relations.
– The plaintiff did not provide evidence of rights violation by the donation agreement.
The court considers a vindicatory claim for recovery of property share or its value to be an effective method of protection.
3. Court Decision: Reject the claim due to the selection of an inappropriate method of rights protection.
The court decision demonstrates a principled position that the method of rights protection must be effective and actually restore violated rights.
