1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's scenario.

B. Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul apartment D (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) at the Plaintiff’s domicile was supplied with steel bars to the E-Building Association, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of F, the Plaintiff’s wife on April 12, 2010. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of F, the Plaintiff’s wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of November 20, 2012 (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”).

(The transaction value of KRW 170 million). (c)

From the name of F, the Plaintiff, while completing the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, prepared and appended a sales contract, which is KRW 170 million in the purchase price (an amount of KRW 40 million in the contract amount, KRW 50 million in the intermediate payment, November 20, 2012, the contract date, and KRW 50 million in the intermediate payment, KRW 50 million in the intermediate payment, December 5, 2012, and KRW 80 million in the remainder, respectively, on December 21, 2012).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff sold the apartment of this case to the defendant Yin-do, who is the plaintiff, in half of the market price, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer of this case, but the defendant did not pay the purchase price of KRW 170 million to the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant sought payment of KRW 170 million to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant did not have a duty to pay the purchase price of the plaintiff's assertion since the apartment of this case was donated by the plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant purchased the apartment of this case from F with KRW 170 million and the ownership transfer registration of this case was made. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff donated the apartment of this case to the Defendant, who was the Defendant, as the Plaintiff, to the Defendant, by taking account of the aforementioned circumstances revealed by the evidence and the evidence as seen earlier and the evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, 13, and Nos. 1, 7, and 8 (including the serial number).

Therefore, it is true.