1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The grounds for this part of the claim for cancellation registration of basic facts and ownership transfer registration are stated in this part, and the reasons for this decision are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except where "D was owned" with the third third part of the judgment of the first instance as "D was owned". Thus, this part of the claim is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion demanding the return of loan

A. The plaintiff loan KRW 200 million to the defendant until May 10, 2006. The defendant extended the above money to Q and received KRW 300,000,000 per month as interest, and paid KRW 1,50,000 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff renounced the defendant to receive the above loan from Q and was given up payment of the above loan. However, the defendant was fully paid the above loan from Q, and the defendant was obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff. 2) Since the defendant was fully paid the above loan from Q, the defendant was obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant was the plaintiff's husband and the defendant was invested in KRW 200,000,000 from the defendant's father and did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff.

After September 2006, the Plaintiff and D sold real estate in Bupyeong-si, which is substantially owned by the Defendant, and settled the said money in such a way as to pay the said investment from the purchase price.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 7 through 11 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant was granted a right to collateral security of KRW 200 million with respect to a building owned by Q Q as of May 15, 2006 under the name of the Defendant C, a deceptive act, and the Defendant paid KRW 300,000 per month from January 2008 to December 2008 and paid KRW 1.5 million per month to the Plaintiff. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000 from the Plaintiff and lent it to Q, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

1. The defendant.