1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: (a) adding “the ground for the recognition of the head of the judgment of the first instance”; (b) the description of evidence (including the number, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings” as “N” under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) adding the following judgments to “ through N” under the 7th page 18, the ground for the recognition of the head of the judgment of the first instance; and (d) the reasoning of this court is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Part] In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the order to submit taxation information to the head of the Gwangju Tax Office, the head of the Seocheon Tax Office, and the head of the Dongjak Tax Office, the fact that O, P, and Q did not report the construction cost or any other necessary expenses at the time of filing a standard return on capital gains tax on the pertinent land among the instant land.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to N on January 4, 2010 in cash, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that N paid construction costs to N to Construction Business Operators S was paid by N to N, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the construction costs paid by N to Construction Business Operators are paid to N., and on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the instant decision of dismissal based on the facts acknowledged earlier, exceeding KRW 36,900,000, which was recognized by the Plaintiff as the construction costs paid by the Plaintiff, was paid as the Plaintiff’s funds.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim would have been accepted if the plaintiff filed a revocation lawsuit on the disposition of this case on this premise.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (According to reference materials submitted by the defendant after the conclusion of pleadings, the defendant's order for payment in the judgment of the court of first instance on June 29, 2020 can be acknowledged as being deposited with the defendant as a person who is a party against whom

However, provisional execution has been declared.