beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified or added as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is recognized by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part pertaining to the change or additional determination
A. The amended part of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) the part on the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 6 to 7, “no evidence to acknowledge this exists; and (b) the part on the grounds that the Defendant was a person who was at the end of December, 2012, when making a meal with the Plaintiff around the end of December, 2012, is insufficient to recognize it; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”
B. Part 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion on additional determination is that the Defendant knew of his father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s husband, and if he knew of the adoption, the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on division of this case with the Defendant on the sole basis that all inherited property corresponding to his statutory share of inheritance, such as the division agreement in this case. In other words, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on division of this case with the Defendant. In other words, the Plaintiff’s agreement on division of this case with the Defendant should be revoked because it was a juristic act that was caused by mistake in the motive caused by the Defendant (a concealment of the Plaintiff’s adoption) (ab) and the overall purport of the presented evidence and arguments. In other words, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s failure to know of his adoption was caused by the Defendant solely. Rather, it appears that the Plaintiff could have concealed the adoption of the Plaintiff as if the Defendant and C were a natural father’s father’s husband or the Defendant’s wife at the time of the division of this case.