1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each description of evidence Nos. 7 through 21, which was submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment on the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court as set forth in paragraph (3), and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, and 24 and the overall purport of pleadings, namely, ① the plaintiff and the defendant have entered into a sales contract with regard to the loan Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, and 24, but there is no statement that the plaintiff would receive the transfer of the ownership of the loan Nos. 4 and 4 from the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, in lieu of the payment of the purchase price. ② The plaintiff transferred the ownership of the loan Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 23, and 300,000 won under the name of the plaintiff who was in de facto marital relationship (the plaintiff's loan No. 4, 2008,000 won.