1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The reasons why the court has used this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

With the exception of the part to be changed in paragraph (1), the corresponding description shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part of paragraph (1) (the part from 2 to 3 pages of the judgment of the first instance) is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.

B. The part 1 which alters the “F 2205 square meters” in the 2nd 8 line of the judgment of the first instance as “F 2,205 square meters”. (2) The three-dimensional line of the judgment of the first instance as “to purchase C land from I in the amount of KRW 16 million” in the 3rd line of the judgment of the first instance as “to purchase C land from I”.

3) On April 1, 2004, “The registration of ownership transfer in the name of M, which is the Plaintiff’s expulsion on April 1, 2004, purchase Eri land at KRW 600 million” in the third 6 line of the judgment of the court of first instance converted “the registration of ownership transfer in the name of M, which is the Plaintiff’s expulsion (R) and S (T)” into “the registration of ownership transfer in each name of M, which is the Plaintiff’s expulsion (7 lots) and S (T). 4) The third 9 line of the judgment of first instance changed to “the purchase of F land at KRW 300 million.”

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the claim is used by the court is identical to the part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the part from 6 lines to 5 lines) of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the pertinent statement is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. On the premise of the claim in this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant invested KRW 30 million in determining the investment ratio of the original and the defendant in accordance with the investment ratio of the original and the defendant (the total purchase price of each of the lands in this case (1.47 billion won) - various expenses). As such, in relation to the plaintiff's actual investment amount, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff purchased each of the lands in this case by investing KRW 676 billion including the loan amount of KRW 300 million, in relation to the amount of the plaintiff's actual investment amount, the total purchase price of each of the lands in this case is 1 billion.0 billion.