2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “C”) died on December 21, 2003 while owning each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).

The heir, including the Plaintiff, was transferred according to the statutory shares of the deceased, on the grounds of tax issues and efficient operation issues in connection with the inheritance of the mother, including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, children, D, and E, who are his spouse, immediately before the death, agreed to transfer only the name of the above mother, to the Defendant and E.

Accordingly, on December 15, 2003, C donated to Defendant and E one-half share of each one-half share of the above telecom, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on this on December 19, 2003.

B. Even after the death of C, the instant Maurel mainly operated by the Plaintiff and E.

In the process, there was a conflict between the two families over the instant cartels by the Defendant, the nominal owner of 1/2 shares among the instant cartels, such as the distribution of profits from the management of the cartels and the payment of taxes, and thus, raising an issue to the Plaintiff and E.

C. Accordingly, on April 8, 2012, I, the Defendant’s three villages, called a family conference to discuss an appropriate solution for the operation, disposition, etc. of the instant telecom, and the Defendant and E, in that place, have drawn up a letter of intent to transfer the ownership of the instant telecom to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness D of the first instance court, the witness I of the first instance court before the remand, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant, except in extenuating circumstances, has the reason for donation on April 8, 2012 to the plaintiff with respect to the defendant's share in the instant telecom.