1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 1985, the Defendant purchased the pertinent land in the amount of KRW 38 million (hereinafter “the instant sale”) from C, the purchase price of KRW 25,12 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On May 14, 1985, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land.

B. After that, on June 4, 2004, the Defendant changed the land category of the instant land into “former”. On July 2, 2004, the Defendant purchased the neighboring land of E prior to E on July 2, 2004 (hereinafter “instant neighboring land”) and combined the instant adjacent land on July 30, 204 after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant neighboring land on July 19, 2004.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 1985, at the Defendant’s recommendation, the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendant to share KRW 20 million of the instant purchase price, and to dispose of the instant land at an appropriate time and distribute profits in 1/2. However, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the transfer registration of ownership on the instant land was to be completed in the future by the Defendant. (2) At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff bears to pay for intermediary fees, registration expenses, acquisition tax, and meal expenses to the seller and broker, etc. under the instant sales contract, including part of the instant purchase price, with surplus funds, and the insufficient amount was covered by the loan at the Sungcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City branch.

3) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly purchased the instant land, and thus, the instant sales contract was prepared in two copies for the buyer. As a means to secure the right to the Plaintiff’s share among the instant land, the Plaintiff was entirely kept two copies of the instant sales contract. 4) The Defendant from around 1985 to the south side of the instant land.