1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff, around December 7, 2012, donated 1/2 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate shares”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and sought implementation under the said gift agreement by the instant lawsuit.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff currently holds the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression issued on December 7, 2012, stating that "50% of the shares in the real estate in this case owned by the defendant is consenting to the plaintiff's donation" in the registration certificate of rights to the real estate in this case and the remarks column of Eul.

However, on the other hand, according to Eul evidence Nos. 1 (the plaintiff's writing and unmanned machines after the plaintiff's name are recognized to be by the plaintiff, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to be established as a whole, since the plaintiff's writing and unmanned machines are confirmed to be caused by the plaintiff). On January 24, 2013, the plaintiff and the defendant drafted "B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-U"-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

Thus, the Defendant agreed to donate the instant real estate shares to the Plaintiff.

Even if the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to claim the performance of the obligation under the above agreement (the "natural obligation" is referred to as the "natural obligation"), it may be recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to claim the performance of the obligation under the above agreement, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought against the above agreement of the action, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights.