1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows, or the reasons for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as to the allegations added by the defendant to this court as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

Each "F Hospital" in the 2nd and 7th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be raised to "AI Hospital".

In the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, the "Keg-gun" in the 3rd judgment is turned into the "Ze-gun of the Gyeonggi-gun."

The 10th of the 9th judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

In light of the facts stated in the above, “A” and the Defendant submitted the evidence Nos. 18 and 19 to the appellate court, and the content of the letter of confirmation as of June 28, 2016 in the name of the deceased, the power of attorney as of July 4, 2016, and the personal seal impression of the deceased in each of the above documents, each of the above gift contracts is alleged to have been prepared by the deceased as the true intent. However, the above letter of confirmation as of June 28, 2016 (No. 18-1 and No. 17) are as follows.

As well as letter of delegation dated 4, 2016 (No. 19-1 and No. 18)

In addition, there is no signature of the deceased on the part of the deceased. However, although the certificate of the deceased’s personal seal (No. 18 and No. 19, No. 2) is attached, it is difficult to deem that the above donation contract was made with the true will of the deceased solely on the ground that the defendant was issued a certificate on behalf of the deceased and that it is difficult to deem that the above donation contract was made with the true will of the deceased."

The statements in the evidence No. 21 to 25 submitted by the Defendant in this Court alone are insufficient to recognize that the deceased held the title trust of the AA’s land owned by him/her to the network E, and unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the AA’s land appears to be “this Court” as “the court of the first instance” under the first instance judgment No. 13 of the “The Network E’s Property,” and under the second and fourth pages below.