1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was born between D date E and B, but was reported as born between E-type F and the Defendant.

B. As F died on December 24, 1991, the registration of transfer of the ownership of 2/5 in the name of the Plaintiff and 3/5 in the future of the Defendant, respectively, was completed on the grounds of inheritance with respect to the Jung-gu Daejeon G apartment H (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by F. G apartment H (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

C. From February 24, 1994, the Plaintiff raised E and B, a biological parent, from around February 24, 1994.

On July 15, 1995, the defendant sold the apartment of this case to I and received 97,300,000 won in the purchase price.

E. On November 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the purchase price of the apartment of this case was KRW 160 million, and claimed the return of KRW 64 million, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share, against the Defendant.

(D) On September 21, 2004, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay 1,6920,000 won with 5% interest per annum from July 8, 2004 to September 21, 2004 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

F. The plaintiff appealed against the above judgment. On April 1, 2005, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2004Na9068) notified the plaintiff of the ruling of recommending reconciliation that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45 million won up to April 30, 2005, and if he fails to pay the above money by the payment date, he shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of payment to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case"). The above ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case became final and conclusive on April 19, 2005 because the plaintiff and the defendant did not raise any objection within two weeks after being served with the ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case.

G. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the decision of recommending reconciliation in the instant case.

(h)..