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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The plaintiff's argument regarding the plaintiff's assertion argues that since the court also bears the whole or at least 50% of the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, the presumption of unique property under Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act is reversed. However, considering the circumstances cited by the court of first instance in addition to the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff bears the burden of purchase fund as alleged in the above argument even if all evidence submitted by this court are gathered. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument

It is insufficient to view that there was an actual income exceeding KRW 95,00,589, which was recognized earlier by B.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 14, B appears to have sold an apartment owned by oneself around November 2002, but in light of the fact that the right to collateral security was established after the sale, it is highly probable that the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security was deducted from the purchase price.

C. As seen earlier, it seems that the Defendant had most of the Defendant’s income to bear the sales price of the instant apartment, considering that the lease deposit that the Defendant leased the building inherited from her native families for at least 10 years until the purchase of the instant apartment by her native families was 30 million won in total, and that the monthly rent was KRW 800,000,000 and the profits from the use of the building.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.