2. Determination

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5, 12 (except for calculation of the marks) through 8, 21). Thus, this part is cited in accordance

[Attachment] 6 pages 2 of the first instance judgment: “The result of the fact-finding reply to H by the court of first instance,” as “the result of the fact-finding reply to H by the court of first instance, the witness H’s testimony and testimony at the court of first instance.”

From 6 pages 8 to 11 of the first instance judgment, the following subparagraphs are met.

“B The Defendant alleged to the effect that H donated the down payment and five intermediate payments on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, H donated the down payment once to the Plaintiff. Of the five-time intermediate payments, H donated the down payment to the Plaintiff. Of the five-time intermediate payments, KRW 220 million to H (hereinafter “J”).

A) The Defendant was given a reply that H loaned to the Plaintiff. He appeared as a witness in this Court and testified to the effect that “H both the first down payment and the fifth intermediate payment with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was entitled to purchase the apartment of this case, and that it was not a donation to the Defendant. The fifth intermediate payment is a loan made by the Plaintiff, and the sum of KRW 220 million was paid to J nine times from October 21, 2008 to December 7, 2009.” The above content of the reply and the testimony are consistent with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to deem the content of the reply and the testimony as false (the Defendant is between H and the Defendant).