1. The appeal against the principal claim and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2.In addition, a new trial shall be added.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that: (a) AV, who had the Art Department in the instant apartment, had had several art works in the instant apartment; (b) had visited the instant apartment in around 2009 to show that: (c) had several art works; (d) had visited the instant apartment around 2009; and (e) had the Deceased’s 14 points or actual works; (c) had visited the instant apartment in around 2007; and (d) the Defendant had applied for the preservation of evidence by Seoul Central District Court 2014.129; but (e) had not been allowed to conduct a field investigation on July 16, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s absence of a closed text.

However, it is difficult to conclude that: (a) in the case of “BA (110*205)” which was awarded by the deceased on July 12, 2007, the payment of the price is the ownership of the deceased, in view of the following circumstances: (b) In the case of “AE” which was awarded by the deceased at auction on July 12, 2007, the truster or purchaser of the evidence Nos. 37, 39, 40, 41, and 44; and (c) in the case of “AE” which was awarded by the deceased on July 12, 2007, the truster or purchaser of “AM”, “NO” as the ownership of the deceased; and (d) in the case of “BA (110*205) the apartment property owned by the deceased at the time of the first instance or the first instance court, it is difficult for the deceased to conclude that the apartment property was owned by the deceased at the time of 0th of the deceased’s death.