1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

3. Order 1 of the first instance judgment

1. The defendant's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows evidence submitted in this court, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” to the assertion that the Defendant emphasizes or adds to this Court, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment. As such, this Court cites the assertion including the summary thereof under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. (1) A) around June 2013, the Defendant sold the instant farmland, which was originally owned by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff at KRW 30 million, which was KRW 1/2,000,000,000. The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 60,000,000 on the written contract for acquiring the original register of farmland, and transferred the entire share in the Plaintiff’s name.

Around June 2013, the Defendant received KRW 92 million from the Plaintiff at the time of the instant farmland sale. However, the Defendant received KRW 30 million with the purchase price of the instant farmland. The remainder is KRW 28,752,000 with the purchase price of the instant farmland, KRW 25,260,000 with the fees and public charges paid by the certified judicial scrivener related to the instant building, KRW 25,260,000 with the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff around June 20, 2012, and KRW 7,98,000 with the purchase price received by the Plaintiff after selling Seosan land, KRW 1.5 million with the purchase price received by the Plaintiff (Defendant 1 prepared in writing prepared on January 25, 2019, and KRW 810-10,000 with the reasons for appeal on December 3, 2019). Therefore, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s share in the purchase price is owned by D/17,2016.

B) The Plaintiff: (a) donated the instant farmland and buildings to the C church in which the Defendant was a pastor; and (b) transferred the registration certificate of the instant farmland and buildings to the C church in around 2015.

C) The Plaintiff’s consent on July 2016, led by Plaintiff E, who is the Plaintiff’s leader.