1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

The plaintiff and defendant B's assertion in the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence additionally examined in the court of first instance was examined in light of the evidence adopted in the court of first instance, it is justifiable to recognize and determine the facts of first instance.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the supplement of the judgment, except for the supplement of the judgment, as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the two pages of the judgment of the first instance, the attached Table "attached Form 3" shall be written in the form of "attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance", each of the three conducts below the third and third sides.

The "Real Estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the apartment of this case")" of 3 pages from the last 2th parallel of the judgment of the first instance to the "multi-family housing of this case".

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on supplementary determination, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that since Defendant B had borne the price for acquisition of the apartment of this case, it should be deemed that all or part of the apartment of this case (1/2 equity or 11/56 equity) was trusted to Defendant C.

Since real estate acquired by one spouse in his/her own name during the marriage under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the peculiar property of the person in his/her own name during the marriage, the other spouse must bear the price of the real estate and prove that he/she has acquired the real estate in his/her own name in order to reverse such presumption.

At this time, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund is the source of the purchase fund, reversed the presumption of an unconditional property and held a trust in the name of the real estate

It is not reasonable to see that the other spouse has paid the price for the real estate in question by taking into account all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, and whether the other spouse has entrusted the real estate in the name of specific person.