o In Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the result of the submission of an order to submit a report on the inside of the court of first instance" is added as evidence in Part 7.

o Part 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, "Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the Evidence Nos. 3-1 and 8 of the Evidence No. 3-2 of the judgment of the first instance court" shall be applied to "No. 1, 2 of the Evidence No. 3, No. 3-6, and No. 4-8 of the Judgment No. 3 of the first instance court, respectively, to "No.

o Article 13 of the Judgment of the first instance court No. 3 provides that "The defendant paid " 140,000,000 won of value-added tax paid by the plaintiff shall be recognized, and there is no other evidence that the defendant paid the construction cost, including the above value-added tax, to the plaintiff (the witness B of the first instance court testified that the value-added tax was to be paid to the plaintiff upon deposit into the defendant passbook, and that there was no balance on the wind attached by the National Tax Service, which did not exist any balance on the wind attached by the National Tax Service)."

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-3, as shown below, the plaintiff was paid KRW 906,00,000 from the defendant side to the plaintiff as follows (J is the mother of Eul, K is the company run by B, and L is the defendant's female and female, and L is the wife of the defendant). Among them, KRW 145,300,000 has been withdrawn again from the defendant's side, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 760,70,000 (= KRW 906,00,000 - KRW 145,30,000).

Meanwhile, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the construction cost exceeding the above recognition scope was paid to the Plaintiff.

Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2009.