1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deleted from Section 3, Section 2, Section 8 and Section 3, and except for adding the following judgments, this court’s reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Additional Part] The defendant asserts that since the deceased R (the plaintiff and the father of the defendant) prohibited the division of the real estate of this case by will, the division of the real estate of this case is prohibited pursuant to Article 1012 of the Civil Code.

However, prior to the death of R, the instant real estate was donated to S (the Plaintiff and Defendant’s punishment) and the ownership transfer registration was completed to S., and on January 26, 2016, after R was deceased, the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed on January 26, 2016 on the instant real estate due to each of the shares of 1/2 shares to the Plaintiff and the Defendant is without dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the instant real estate is not a net R’s inherited property, and there is no room to apply Article 1012 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The plaintiff and the defendant asserted that "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff a monthly fee of KRW 500,000,000 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall continue to occupy and use the real estate of this case, and thereafter, the defendant agreed to sell the real estate through consultation when the defendant reached the unused land."

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts alleged (the record that the defendant used as evidence does not contain the above contents). The above argument is without merit.

In light of the size and use status of the real estate of this case, which can be seen as the video of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, if the real estate of this case is divided in kind, the part to be owned by the plaintiff alone is less than the value of use and it seems that the value of the part to be owned by the

At present, the defendant is operating rice tea house in the real estate of this case.