The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

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

Basic Facts

1) On September 2017, the deceased, who is a visually disabled person, (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), acquired marina business establishments located in D (hereinafter referred to as “the instant business establishments”) and carried out together with the Plaintiff.

2) At the time, the lease contract for the instant establishment was concluded by the lessee as the deceased.

1) On November 1, 2017, E, the only child of the deceased, succeeded to the deceased’s property.

2) Around that time, the Plaintiff changed the lessee’s name of the instant business establishment to the Plaintiff under the understanding of the Defendant, etc., the mother of C, the Defendant, etc., and operated the instant business solely.

On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff sold the instant establishment to F without any distinction from any one of the bereaved family members of C, and received KRW 75 million as lease deposit and KRW 40 million as premium.

E, on November 28, 2018, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 115 million for the sale price of the instant establishment. On July 17, 2019, E was sentenced to a judgment accepting all remaining claims except for part of delay damages on the ground that “the entire right to the instant establishment was possessed by the Deceased, and the sale price was reverted to E, the heir of the Deceased.” ( Suwon District Court 2018 Ghana 5564155). The Plaintiff appealed ( Suwon District Court 2019Na74959), but the Plaintiff appealed ( Suwon District Court 2019Na74959), and was sentenced to a dismissal of appeal on August 14, 2020. While the Plaintiff was on the part of the Plaintiff (2020Da261929), the appellate judgment became final and conclusive upon the review’s continuation on December 10, 2020.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and the gist of the plaintiff’s argument as to the purport of the whole pleadings is that the defendant, who is the mother of the deceased, actually operated the business of this case. Upon the death of the deceased, the plaintiff continued to operate the business of this case until the time when the defendant requested the disposition to the plaintiff, while the operation funds of this case are operated by